<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com">
<title>Journal of Medical Ethics Online First</title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com</link>
<description>Journal of Medical Ethics RSS Feed -- Online First</description>
<prism:publicationName>Journal of Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0306-6800</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100367v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101147v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101084v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101030v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101282v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101080v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101215v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101398v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101415v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100911v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101253v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101122v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100716v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101116v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101118v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101026v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101328v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100934v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100945v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100408v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101019v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101260v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100791v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101449v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100715v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101150v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101126v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100771v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101340v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101200v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101124v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101078v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100887v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100528v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100391v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100642v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101261v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100813v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101423v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100904v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101346v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101456v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101067v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101174v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101317v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101111v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101061v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101060v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101109v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101110v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101370v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101079v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101062v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100920v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101257v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101160v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101194v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100994v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101112v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100727v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101092v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101268v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100700v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101175v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100619v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101117v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100729v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100871v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100859v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101108v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101094v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100815v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100302v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101332v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100975v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101182v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101004v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101142v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101077v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100924v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100745v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101235v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100427v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100821v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101157v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101096v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101153v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101129v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100989v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101138v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101075v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100697v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100502v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100809v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101207v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100774v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101206v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100947v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101172v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101132v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100882v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100658v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100369v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101013v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100769v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101045v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101074v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100916v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100488v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100490v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100679v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101136v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100907v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100832v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101134v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100978v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101065v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101024v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100981v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101083v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100943v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100927v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100645v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101028v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100788v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101016v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100983v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100942v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100856v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100770v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100940v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100568v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100561v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100422v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100939v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100826v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100649v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100954v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100833v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100682v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100676v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100683v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100677v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100104v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100534v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100571v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100763v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100274v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100761v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100646v2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100318v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100647v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100662v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100663v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100079v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100426v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100492v1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100207v2?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://hwmaint.jme.bmj.com/homepage/JME_95x60.gif" />
</channel>
<image rdf:about="http://hwmaint.jme.bmj.com/homepage/JME_95x60.gif">
<title>Journal of Medical Ethics</title>
<url>http://hwmaint.jme.bmj.com/homepage/JME_95x60.gif</url>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com</link>
</image>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100367v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Is prostitution harmful?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100367v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A common argument against prostitution states that selling sex is harmful because it involves selling something deeply personal and emotional. More and more of us, however, believe that sexual encounters need not be deeply personal and emotional in order to be acceptable&mdash;we believe in the acceptability of casual sex. In this paper I argue that if casual sex is acceptable, then we have few or no reasons to reject prostitution. I do so by first examining nine influential arguments to the contrary. These arguments purport to pin down the alleged additional harm brought about by prostitution (compared to just casual sex) by appealing to various aspects of its practice, such as its psychology, physiology, economics and social meaning. For each argument I explain why it is unconvincing. I then weight the costs against the benefits of prostitution, and argue that, in sum, prostitution is no more harmful than a long line of occupations that we commonly accept without hesitation.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moen, O. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-17T00:00:45-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100367</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100367</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Is prostitution harmful?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101147v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101147v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Emergency departments are challenging research settings, where truly informed consent can be difficult to obtain. A deeper understanding of emergency medical patients&rsquo; opinions about research is needed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-summary of quantitative and qualitative studies on which values, attitudes, or beliefs of emergent medical research participants influence research participation. We included studies of adults that investigated opinions toward emergency medicine research participation. We excluded studies focused on the association between demographics or consent document features and participation and those focused on non-emergency research. In August 2011, we searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scirus, PsycINFO, AgeLine and Global Health. Titles, abstracts and then full manuscripts were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and adjudicated by a third author. Studies were evaluated for bias using standardised scores. We report themes associated with participation or refusal. Our initial search produced over 1800 articles. A total of 44 articles were extracted for full-manuscript analysis, and 14 were retained based on our eligibility criteria. Among factors favouring participation, altruism and personal health benefit had the highest frequency. Mistrust of researchers, feeling like a &lsquo;guinea pig&rsquo; and risk were leading factors favouring refusal. Many studies noted limitations of informed consent processes in emergent conditions. We conclude that highlighting the benefits to the participant and society, mitigating risk and increasing public trust may increase research participation in emergency medical research. New methods for conducting informed consent in such studies are needed.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Limkakeng, A. T., de Oliveira, L. L. H., Moreira, T., Phadtare, A., Garcia Rodrigues, C., Hocker, M. B., McKinney, R., Voils, C. I., Pietrobon, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-11T00:01:17-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101147</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101147</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Emergency medicine, Epidemiologic studies, Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-11</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101084v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Climate change matters]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101084v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>One manifestation of climate change is the increasingly severe extreme weather that causes injury, illness and death through heat stress, air pollution, infectious disease and other means. Leading health organisations around the world are responding to the related water and food shortages and volatility of energy and agriculture prices that threaten health and health economics. Environmental and climate ethics highlight the associated challenges to human rights and distributive justice but rarely address health or encompass bioethical methods or analyses. Public health ethics and its broader umbrella, bioethics, remain relatively silent on climate change. Meanwhile global population growth creates more people who aspire to Western lifestyles and unrestrained socioeconomic growth. Fulfilling these aspirations generates more emissions; worsens climate change; and undermines virtues and values that engender appreciation of, and protections for, natural resources. Greater understanding of how virtues and values are evolving in different contexts, and the associated consequences, might nudge the individual and collective priorities that inform public policy toward embracing stewardship and responsibility for environmental resources necessary to health. Instead of neglecting climate change and related policy, public health ethics and bioethics should explore these issues; bring transparency to the tradeoffs that permit emissions to continue at current rates; and offer deeper understanding about what is at stake and what it means to live a good life in today's world.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Macpherson, C. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-11T00:01:17-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101084</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101084</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Oncology, Health policy, Epidemiologic studies, Bioethics, Health economics, Health service research, Human rights]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Climate change matters]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-11</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101030v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The kindest cut? Surgical castration, sex offenders and coercive offers]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101030v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) have conducted visits and written reports criticising the surgical castration of sex offenders in the Czech Republic and Germany. They claim that surgical castration is degrading treatment and have called for an immediate end to this practice. The Czech and German governments have published rebuttals of these criticisms. The rebuttals cite evidence about clinical effectiveness and point out this is an intervention that must be requested by the sex offender and cannot occur without informed consent. This article considers a number of relevant arguments that are not discussed in these reports but which are central to how we might assess this practice. First, the article discusses the possible ways in which sex offenders could be coerced into castration and whether this is a decisive moral problem. Then, it considers a number of issues relevant to determining whether sex offenders are harmed by physical castration. The article concludes by arguing that sex offenders should not be coerced into castration, be that via threats or offers, but that there is no reason to think that this is occurring in the Czech Republic or Germany. In some cases, castration might be useful for reconfiguring a life that has gone badly awry and where there is no coercion, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment are mistaken about this being degrading treatment.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McMillan, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-11T00:01:17-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101030</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101030</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Informed consent, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The kindest cut? Surgical castration, sex offenders and coercive offers]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-11</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101282v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Legislative regulation and ethical governance of medical research in different European Union countries]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101282v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Objective</st><p>To obtain information about the similarities and differences in regulating different types of medical research in the European Union (EU).</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>Web searches were performed from September 2009 to January 2011. Notes on pre-determined topics were systematically taken down from the web pages. The analysis relied only on documents and reports available on the web, reflecting the situation at the end of 2010.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>In several countries, regulatory legislation applied only to clinical trials on drugs and medical devices, in other states various types of research were also regulated but by laws different from those concerning trials, and in many countries, some research areas were not controlled by legislation at all. In very few countries was all medical research handled similarly from a legal point of view. The number of research ethics committees (RECs) in a single country varied from one to 264. Their areas of responsibility, working principles and length of time to grant research permission varied as well as the rules for obtaining informed consent from vulnerable groups. In 10 EU countries, there was no appeal mechanism after a negative decision by an REC. The RECs were not accountable to any organisation in five EU countries.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>There is a need for a fundamental debate regarding whether and which kinds of changes are needed for the further harmonisation of medical research governance in the EU and how cross-country medical research could be facilitated in the future.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Veerus, P., Lexchin, J., Hemminki, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-10T00:01:22-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101282</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101282</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Legislative regulation and ethical governance of medical research in different European Union countries]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-10</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101080v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Rewards and incentives for the provision of human tissue for research]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101080v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The Nuffield Council on Bioethics&rsquo; 2011 report, <I>Human Bodies: Donation for Medicine and Research</I>, proposes a system for examining the ethical implications of different types of incentives for the provision of human tissue for use in medicine and research. The cornerstone of this system is the principle of altruism which, the Council recommends, should, where possible, remain the starting point for any such tissue provision. Using the Council's example of ova provision for research as an area in which altruism-based rewards might be departed from, this article argues that such a system has the potential to become inconsistent and unnecessarily complex. It suggests that the outcomes-focussed and motivations-focussed justifications the Council provides do not sit easily within the fast-paced and unpredictable area of biotechnology research. Further, it may undermine the focus on autonomy that is enshrined in the relevant legislation. This article suggests that a fair system for incentivising and rewarding the provision of human tissue in research should be developed, which focuses on elements of this role that are common to all tissue providers.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Devaney, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-10T00:01:22-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101080</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101080</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Rewards and incentives for the provision of human tissue for research]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-10</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101215v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Why shared decision making is not good enough: lessons from patients]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101215v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A closer look at the lived illness experiences of medical professionals themselves shows that shared decision making is in need of a logic of care. This paper underlines that medical decision making inevitably takes place in a messy and uncertain context in which sharing responsibilities may impose a considerable burden on patients. A better understanding of patients&rsquo; lived experiences enables healthcare professionals to attune to what individual patients deem important in their lives. This will contribute to making medical decisions in a good and caring manner, taking into account the lived experience of being ill.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Olthuis, G., Leget, C., Grypdonck, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-09T00:00:52-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101215</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101215</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Why shared decision making is not good enough: lessons from patients]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-09</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Viewpoint</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101398v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Forthcoming practical framework for ethics committees and researchers on post-trial access to the trial intervention and healthcare]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101398v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>When research concludes, post-trial access (PTA) to the trial intervention or standard healthcare can be crucial for participants who are ill such as those in resource-poor countries with inadequate healthcare, British participants testing &lsquo;last-chance drugs&rsquo; unavailable on the National Health Service (NHS) and underinsured US participants. Yet, many researchers are unclear about their obligations regarding the post-trial period, and many research ethics committees (RECs) do not know what to require of researchers. Consequences include participants who reasonably expect but lack PTA to the trial intervention, unplanned financial liabilities for NHS Trusts forced to fund this, negative press and potential to undermine public trust.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref><sup>&ndash;</sup><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref>,<cross-ref type="fn" refid="fn1">i</cross-ref></p><p>One reason for the lack of clarity is controversy over whether and when participants should have access, after the study, to the study intervention. At one extreme is the view that continued access should be ensured when the intervention has benefited the...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sofaer, N., Lewis, P., Davies, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-05T00:00:44-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101398</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101398</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Open access]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Forthcoming practical framework for ethics committees and researchers on post-trial access to the trial intervention and healthcare]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-05</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Editorial</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101415v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What about the dentist-patient relationship in dental tourism?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101415v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Dental tourism is patients travelling across international borders with the intention of receiving dental care. It is a growing phenomenon that raises many ethical issues, particularly regarding the dentist&ndash;patient relationship. We discuss various issues related to this phenomenon, including patient autonomy over practitioner choice, patient safety, continuity of care, informed consent and doctor&ndash;patient communication, among other factors. In particular, patients partaking in medical tourism should be informed of its potential problems and the importance of proper planning and post-treatment care to guarantee high-quality treatment outcomes.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Conti, A., Delbon, P., Laffranchi, L., Paganelli, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-30T00:00:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101415</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101415</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Patients, Communication, Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine, Medical error/ patient safety]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What about the dentist-patient relationship in dental tourism?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100911v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Significance of past statements: speech act theory]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100911v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In <I>W v M</I>, a judge concluded that M's past statements should not be given weight in a best interests assessment. Several commentators in the ethics literature have argued this approach ignored M's autonomy. In this short article I demonstrate how the basic tenets of speech act theory can be used to challenge the inherent assumption that past statements represent an individual's beliefs, choices or decisions. I conclude that speech act theory, as a conceptual tool, has a valuable contribution to make to this debate.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gordon, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-30T07:22:55-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100911</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100911</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Open access]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Significance of past statements: speech act theory]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101253v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101253v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Empirical studies on people's moral attitudes regarding ethically challenging topics contribute greatly to research in medical ethics. However, it is not always clear in which ways this research adds to medical ethics as a normative discipline. In this article, we aim to provide a systematic account of the different ways in which attitudinal research can be used for normative reflection. In the first part, we discuss whether ethical judgements can be based on empirical work alone and we develop a sceptical position regarding this point, taking into account theoretical, methodological and pragmatic considerations. As empirical data should not be taken as a direct source for normative justification, we then delineate different ways in which attitudes research can be combined with theoretical accounts of normative justification in the second part of the article. Firstly, the combination of attitudes research with normative-ethical theories is analysed with respect to three different aspects: (a) The extent of empirical data which is needed, (b) the question of which kind of data is required and (c) the ways in which the empirical data are processed within the framework of an ethical theory. Secondly, two further functions of attitudes research are displayed which lie outside the traditional focus of ethical theories: the exploratory function of detecting and characterising new ethical problems, and the field of &lsquo;moral pragmatics&rsquo;. The article concludes with a methodological outlook and suggestions for the concrete practice of attitudinal research in medical ethics.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Salloch, S., Vollmann, J., Schildmann, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-30T07:22:55-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101253</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101253</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[History of medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101122v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The duty to be Well-informed: The case of depression]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101122v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>It is now an ethical dictum that patients should be informed by physicians about their diagnosis, prognosis and treatment options. In this paper, I ask: &lsquo;How informed are the &lsquo;informers&rsquo; in clinical practice?&rsquo; Physicians have a duty to be &lsquo;well-informed&rsquo;: patient well-being depends not just in conveying adequate information to patients, it also depends on physicians keeping up-to-date about: (1) popular misunderstandings of illnesses and treatments; and (2) the importance of patient psychology in affecting prognosis. Taking the case of depression as an entry point, this paper argues that medical researchers and physicians need to pay serious attention to the explanations given to patients regarding their diagnosis. Studies on lay understanding of depression show that there is a common belief that depression is wholly caused by a &lsquo;chemical imbalance&rsquo; (such as &lsquo;low serotonin&rsquo;) that can be restored by chemically restorative antidepresssants, a claim that has entered &lsquo;folk wisdom&rsquo;. However, these beliefs oversimplify and misrepresent the current scientific understanding of the causes of depression: first, there is consensus in the scientific community that the causes of depression include social as well as psychological triggers (and not just biochemical ones); second, there is significant dissensus in the scientific community over exactly what lower level, biological or biochemical processes are involved in causing depression; third, there is no established consensus about how antidepressants work at a biochemical level; fourth, there is evidence that patients are negatively affected if they believe their depression is wholly explained by (the vague descriptor) of &lsquo;biochemical imbalance&rsquo;. I argue that the medical community has a duty, to provide patients with adequate information and to be aware of the negative health impact of prevalent oversimplifications&mdash;whatever their origins.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Blease, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-26T00:01:05-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101122</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101122</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Patients, Informed consent, Legal and forensic medicine, Psychology and medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The duty to be Well-informed: The case of depression]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100716v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Cultural sensitivity in paediatrics]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100716v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In a recent <I>Journal of Medical Ethics</I> article, &lsquo;Should Religious Beliefs Be Allowed to Stonewall a Secular Approach to Withdrawing and Withholding Treatment in Children?&rsquo;, Joe Brierley, Jim Linthicum and Andy Petros argue for rapid intervention in cases of futile life-sustaining treatment. In their experience, when discussions of futility are initiated with parents, parents often appeal to religion to &lsquo;stonewall&rsquo; attempts to disconnect their children from life support. However, I will argue that the intervention that the authors propose is culturally insensitive.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bock, G. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-26T00:00:26-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100716</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100716</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Cultural sensitivity in paediatrics]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Viewpoint</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101116v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Embryonic viability, parental care and the pro-life thesis: a defence of Bovens]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101116v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>On the basis of three empirical assumptions about the rhythm method and the viability of embryos, Bovens concludes that the pro-life position regarding empbryos implies that it is prima facie wrong to use the rhythm method. Pruss objects to Bovens's philosophical presuppositions and Kennedy to his empirical premises. This essay defends two revised versions of Bovens's argument. These arguments revise Bovens's empirical assumptions in response to Kennedy and, in response to Pruss, supplement Bovens's argument with what I call &lsquo;the principle of parental care&rsquo;.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Surovell, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-26T00:00:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101116</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101116</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Embryonic viability, parental care and the pro-life thesis: a defence of Bovens]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Reproductive ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101118v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Should we continue treatment for M? The benefits of living]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101118v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Wilkinson and Savulescu did not agree with the court's decision to continue M's treatment and suggested in their recent commentary that the magnitude of benefits of being alive for M is small compared with the potential use of health resources for other patients. We argue that the benefits of being sensate to the surroundings for an otherwise unconscious person are not necessarily small. One cannot assess on behalf of another person the magnitude of benefits of being alive according to the intensity or the duration of negative experiences. Denying life-sustaining treatment to patients in a minimally conscious state solely on the grounds that they are less capable of enjoying the benefits represents grave discrimination against disabled persons. For patients in a minimally conscious state who have not delegated a surrogate or made any advance decision about their medical treatment, the duty of doctors is to preserve their right to self-determination and maximise their capacity to enjoy their life. M should live on, and life-sustaining treatment should not be withdrawn.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chan, T. K., Tipoe, G. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-26T00:00:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101118</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101118</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Should we continue treatment for M? The benefits of living]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Viewpoint</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101026v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Genetic modifications for personal enhancement: a defence]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101026v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Bioconservative commentators argue that parents should not take steps to modify the genetics of their children even in the name of enhancement because of the damage they predict for values, identities and relationships. Some commentators have even said that adults should not modify themselves through genetic interventions. One commentator worries that genetic modifications chosen by adults for themselves will undermine moral agency, lead to less valuable experiences and fracture people's sense of self. These worries are not justified, however, since the effects of modification will not undo moral agency as such. Adults can still have valuable experiences, even if some prior choices no longer seem meaningful. Changes at the genetic level will not always, either, alienate people from their own sense of self. On the contrary, genetic modifications can help amplify choice, enrich lives and consolidate identities. Ultimately, there is no moral requirement that people value their contingent genetic endowment to the exclusion of changes important to them in their future genetic identities. Through weighing risks and benefits, adults also have the power to consent to&mdash;and assume the risks of&mdash;genetic modifications for themselves in a way not possible in prenatal genetic interventions.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Murphy, T. F.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-23T00:00:46-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101026</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101026</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Education, medical]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Genetic modifications for personal enhancement: a defence]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-23</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Genetics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101328v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Cultural explanations and clinical ethics: active euthanasia in neonatology]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101328v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The authors have undertaken a study to explore the views in non-Western cultures about ending the lives of newborns with genetic defects. This study consists of including active euthanasia alongside withdrawal and withholding of treatment as potential methods used.</p><p>Apart from radicalising the support for active euthanasia in certain instances of neonatal diagnoses, is another interesting point that views of children and death are shaped by religion and culture and are especially highly charged with culturally specific symbolism/s. Furthermore, this is augmented in the context of non-Western cultures&mdash;further polarising the positivist ethics of Western scientific medicine from the cultures that affect only those who are members of &lsquo;other&rsquo; societies.</p><p>From this starting point, the authors shift the focus from clinical explanations of the causation and prognosis of the genetic defects and enter a dialogue with cultural narratives. Consequently, their argument is, broadly, a reassessment of medical practice as a contextualisation of a...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ahmad, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-19T00:01:03-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101328</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101328</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Cultural explanations and clinical ethics: active euthanasia in neonatology]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-19</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100934v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The acceptability among young Hindus and Muslims of actively ending the lives of newborns with genetic defects]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100934v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Aim</st><p>To explore the views in non-Western cultures about ending the lives of damaged newborns.</p></sec><sec><st>Method</st><p>254 university students from India and 150 from Kuwait rated the acceptability of ending the lives of newborns with genetic defects in 54 vignettes consisting of all combinations of four factors: gestational age (term or 7&nbsp;months); severity of genetic defect (trisomy 21 alone, trisomy 21 with serious morphological abnormalities or trisomy 13 with impending death); the parents&rsquo; attitude about prolonging care (unknown, in favour or opposed); and the procedure used (withholding treatment, withdrawing it or injecting a lethal substance).</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>Four clusters were identified by cluster analysis and subjected to analysis of variance. Cluster I, labelled &lsquo;Never Acceptable&rsquo;, included 4% of the Indians and 59% of the Kuwaitis. Cluster II, &lsquo;No Firm Opinion&rsquo;, had little variation in rating from one scenario to the next; it included 38% of the Indians and 18% of the Kuwaitis. In Cluster III, &lsquo;Parents&rsquo; Attitude+Severity+Procedure&rsquo;, all three factors affected the ratings; it was composed of 18% of the Indians and 16% of the Kuwaitis. Cluster IV was called &lsquo;Severity+Parents&rsquo; Attitude&rsquo; because these had the strongest impact; it was composed of 40% of the Indians and 7% of the Kuwaitis.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>In accordance with the teachings of Islam versus Hinduism, Kuwaiti students were more likely to oppose ending a newborn's life under all conditions, Indian students more likely to favour it and to judge its acceptability in light of the different circumstances.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kamble, S., Ahmed, R., Sorum, P. C., Mullet, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-19T00:01:03-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100934</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100934</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), Child health, End of life decisions (palliative care), Assisted dying, End of life decisions (ethics)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The acceptability among young Hindus and Muslims of actively ending the lives of newborns with genetic defects]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-19</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100945v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Refusal rights, law and medical paternalism in Turkey]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100945v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Dr Tolga Guven and Dr Gurkan Sert argue the Turkish legal principles do not give clear guidance about the permissibility of medical paternalism. They then argue that the best interpretation of these principles requires respect for patients&rsquo; rights. I agree that medical paternalism is wrong, but the truth of this claim does not depend on legal interpretation or medical culture. Further, the antipaternalist thesis of Guven and Sert may command much more extensive reforms than they acknowledge.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Flanigan, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-17T23:02:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100945</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100945</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Informed consent, Legal and forensic medicine, Culture, health and illness]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Refusal rights, law and medical paternalism in Turkey]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100408v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Examining the ethico-legal aspects of the right to refuse treatment in Turkey]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100408v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This paper examines the ethico-legal problems regarding the right to refuse treatment in Turkey's healthcare system. We discuss these problems in the light of a recent case that was directly reported to us. We first summarise the experience of a chronically dependent patient (as recounted by her daughter) and her family during their efforts to refuse treatment and receive palliative care only. This is followed by a summary of the legal framework governing the limits of the right to refuse treatment in Turkey. With the help of this background information on the legal framework, we re-examine the ethico-legal aspects of the case and explain the underlying reasons for the problems the family and the patient experienced. Finally, we conclude that Turkey's legal framework relating to the right to refuse treatment needs to be clarified and amended in accordance with international conventions and fundamental human rights.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sert, G., Guven, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-17T00:00:38-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100408</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100408</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Hospice, History of medicine, Human rights]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Examining the ethico-legal aspects of the right to refuse treatment in Turkey]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101019v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Two faces of patient advocacy: the current controversy in newborn screening]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101019v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Newborn screening programmes began in the 1960s, have traditionally been conducted without parental permission and have grown dramatically in the last decade. Whether these programmes serve patients&rsquo; best interests has recently become a point of controversy. Privacy advocates, concerned that newborn screening infringes upon individual liberties, are demanding fundamental changes to these programmes. These include parental permission and limiting the research on the blood samples obtained, an agenda at odds with the viewpoints of newborn screening advocates. This essay presents the history of newborn screening in the USA, with attention to factors that have contributed to concerns about these programmes. The essay suggests that the rapid increase in the number of disorders screened for and the addition of research without either public knowledge or informed consent were critical to the development of resistance to mandatory newborn screening and research. Future newborn screening initiatives should include public education and comment to ensure continued support.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold, C. G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-16T00:00:46-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101019</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101019</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Patients, Screening (epidemiology), Informed consent, Legal and forensic medicine, Human rights, Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Two faces of patient advocacy: the current controversy in newborn screening]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-16</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Public health ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101260v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Depictions of 'brain death' in the media: medical and ethical implications]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101260v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Background</st><p>Debates and controversies have shaped the understanding and the practices related to death determined by neurological criterion (DNC). Confusion about DNC in the public domain could undermine this notion. This confusion could further jeopardise confidence in rigorous death determination procedures, and raise questions about the integrity, sustainability, and legitimacy of modern organ donation practices.</p></sec><sec><st>Objective</st><p>We examined the depictions of &lsquo;brain death&rsquo; in major American and Canadian print media to gain insights into possible common sources of confusion about DNC and the relationship between expert and lay views on this crucial concept.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>We gathered 940 articles, available in electronic databases, published between 2005 and 2009 from high-circulation Canadian and American newspapers containing keywords &lsquo;brain dead&rsquo; or &lsquo;brain death&rsquo;. Articles were systematically examined for content (eg, definitions of brain death and criteria for determination of death) using the NVivo 8 software.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>Our results showed problematic aspects in American and Canadian media, with some salient differences. DNC was used colloquially in 39% (N=366) of the articles and its medical meaning infrequently defined (2.7%; N=14 in the USA and 3.6%; N=15 in Canada). The neurological criterion for determination of death was mentioned in less than 10% of the articles, and life support in about 20% of the articles. Organ donation issues related to DNC were raised more often in Canadian articles than in American articles (33.5% vs 21.2%; p&lt;0.0001).</p></sec><sec><st>Interpretation</st><p>Further discussion is needed to develop innovative strategies to bridge media representations of DNC with experts&rsquo; views in connection with organ donation practices.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daoust, A., Racine, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-12T00:00:46-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101260</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101260</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), End of life decisions (palliative care), Artificial and donated transplantation, End of life decisions (ethics), Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Depictions of 'brain death' in the media: medical and ethical implications]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-12</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Neuroethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100791v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Clinical ethics protocols in the clinical ethics committees of Madrid]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100791v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Introduction</st><p>Currently, The nature and scope of Clinical Ethics Protocols (CEPs) in Madrid (Spain) are not well understood.</p></sec><sec><st>Objectives</st><p>The main objective is to describe the features of &lsquo;guideline/recommendation&rsquo; type CEPs that have been or are being developed by existing Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) in Madrid. Secondary objectives include characterisation of those CECs that have been the most prolific in reference to CEP creation and implementation and identification of any trends in future CEP development.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>We collected CEPs produced and in process by CECs accredited in the public hospitals in Madrid, Spain, from 1996 to 2008.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>CECs developed 30 CEPs, with 10 more in process. The most common topic is refusal of treatment (seven CEPs developed; two in process). If CEPs addressing terminal illness, Do-Not-Resuscitate orders and advance directives are placed into a separate &lsquo;ethical problems at the end of life&rsquo; category, this CEP subject emerges as the most common (eight developed; four in process). There is a relationship between the age of the CEC and the development of CEPs (the oldest CECs have developed more CEPs). CECs now seem to be more likely to engage in CEP development.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>The CECs in Madrid, Spain, have developed a significant number of CEPs (30 in total and 10 in process) and there is a trend towards continued development. The most frequent topics are ethical problems at the end of life and refusal of treatment by the patient.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Herreros, B., Ramnath, V. R., Bishop, L., Pintor, E., Martin, M. D., Sanchez-Gonzalez, M. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-11T00:00:38-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100791</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100791</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Patients, Clinical ethics, End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), End of life decisions (palliative care), Hospice, Artificial and donated transplantation, End of life decisions (ethics)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Clinical ethics protocols in the clinical ethics committees of Madrid]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-11</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101449v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The ownership that wasn't meant to be: Yearworth and property rights in human tissue]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101449v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This paper is concerned with the English Court of Appeal's decision in Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust that six men had, for the purposes of their claims against the trust, ownership of the sperm they had produced. The case has been discussed by many commentators and most, if not all, of those who have discussed the case have claimed or assumed that the court held that the claimants had property rights in the sperm they had produced. In this paper, I advance an interpretation of the case that does not regard the court as deciding that the men had property rights (in the narrow sense of that term) in the sperm they had produced. On this view, the &lsquo;ownership&rsquo; that the Court of Appeal purported to vest in each of the men was not a right <I>in rem</I>, a right &lsquo;binding the world&rsquo;. If this is so, it is perhaps unsurprising that some scholars, evaluating the success of the court's reasoning as a justification for vesting the claimants with property rights, have found it to be unsatisfactory.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rostill, L. D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-10T00:00:21-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101449</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101449</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Psychology and medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The ownership that wasn't meant to be: Yearworth and property rights in human tissue]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-10</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100715v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: who should decide?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100715v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Whether to allow the presence of family members during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been a highly contentious topic in recent years. Even though a great deal of evidence and professional guidelines support the option of family presence during resuscitation (FPDR), many healthcare professionals still oppose it. One of the main arguments espoused by the latter is that family members should not be allowed for the sake of the patient's best interests, whether it is to increase his chances of survival, respect his privacy or leave his family with a last positive impression of him. In this paper, we examine the issue of FPDR from the patient's point of view. Since the patient requires CPR, he is invariably unconscious and therefore incompetent. We discuss the Autonomy Principle and the Three-Tiered process for surrogate decision making, as well as the Beneficence Principle and show that these are limited in providing us with an adequate tool for decision making in this particular case. Rather, we rely on a novel principle (or, rather, a novel specification of an existing principle) and a novel integrated model for surrogate decision making. We show that this model is more satisfactory in taking the patient's true wishes under consideration and encourages a joint decision making process by all parties involved.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lederman, Z., Garasic, M., Piperberg, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-10T00:00:54-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100715</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100715</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Bioethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: who should decide?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-10</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101150v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Unassisted childbirth: why mothers are leaving the system]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101150v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Unassisted childbirth is a topical subject that has sparked ethical and legal debate. Although there are little data surrounding unassisted birthing practice, concerns over consent, procedural intervention and loss of the birthing experience may be driving women away from formal healthcare. The healthcare system needs to work toward understanding this practice and, perhaps with the support of legislation, address the concerns of mothers in order to ensure optimal childbirth outcomes.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dannaway, J., Dietz, H. P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-10T00:00:21-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101150</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101150</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Emergency medicine, Health policy, Epidemiologic studies, Child health, Health service research]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Unassisted childbirth: why mothers are leaving the system]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-10</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Reproductive ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101126v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Does professional orientation predict ethical sensitivities? Attitudes of paediatric and obstetric specialists toward fetuses, pregnant women and pregnancy termination]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101126v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Background</st><p>To determine (1) whether fetal care paediatric (FCP) and maternal&ndash;fetal medicine (MFM) specialists harbour differing attitudes about pregnancy termination for congenital fetal conditions, their perceived responsibilities to pregnant women and fetuses, and the fetus as a patient and (2) whether self-perceived primary responsibilities to fetuses and women and views about the fetus as a patient are associated with attitudes about clinical care.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>Mail survey of 434 MFM and FCP specialists (response rates 60.9% and 54.2%, respectively).</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>MFMs were more likely than FCPs to disagree with these statements (all p values&lt;0.005): (1) &lsquo;the presence of a fetal abnormality is not an appropriate reason for a couple to consider pregnancy termination&rsquo; (MFM : FCP&mdash;78.4% vs 63.5%); (2) &lsquo;the effects that a child born with disabilities might have on marital and family relationships is not an appropriate reason for a couple to consider pregnancy termination&rsquo; (MFM : FCP&mdash;80.5% vs 70.2%); and (3) &lsquo;the cost of healthcare for the future child is not an appropriate reason for a couple to consider pregnancy termination&rsquo; (MFM : FCP&mdash;73.5% vs 55.9%). 65% MFMs versus 47% FCPs disagreed that their professional responsibility is to focus primarily on fetal well-being (p&lt;0.01). Specialists did not differ regarding the fetus as a separate patient. Responses about self-perceived responsibility to focus on fetal well-being were associated with clinical practice attitudes.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>Independent of demographic and sociopolitical characteristics, FCPs and MFMs possess divergent ethical sensitivities regarding pregnancy termination, pregnant women and fetuses, which may influence clinical care.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brown, S. D., Donelan, K., Martins, Y., Sayeed, S. A., Mitchell, C., Buchmiller, T. L., Burmeister, K., Ecker, J. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-09T00:01:08-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101126</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101126</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Ethics of abortion, Ethics of reproduction, Research and publication ethics, Sex and sexuality]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Does professional orientation predict ethical sensitivities? Attitudes of paediatric and obstetric specialists toward fetuses, pregnant women and pregnancy termination]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-09</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Reproductive ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100771v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100771v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There is an emerging ethical consensus that injured research participants should receive medical care and compensation for their research-related injuries. This consensus is premised on notions of beneficence, distributive justice, compensatory justice and reciprocity. In response, countries around the world have implemented no-fault compensation systems to ensure that research participants are adequately protected in the event of injury. The United States, the world's leading sponsor of research, has chosen instead to rely on its legal system to provide injured research participants with medical care and compensation. This article argues that US reliance on its legal system leaves injured research participants unprotected in the event of injury. Nearly every injured research participant will have difficulty receiving compensation in court, and certain classes of research participants will be barred from receiving compensation altogether. The United States&rsquo; outlier status also threatens to impede US-sponsored multinational research, potentially delaying important biomedical advances. To rectify this injustice, researchers, Institutional Review Boards, sponsors and research institutions should advocate systematic no-fault compensation in the United States to bring US law into accord with global ethical norms and ensure that injured research participants are adequately protected.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pike, E. R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-09T00:01:08-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100771</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100771</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-09</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101340v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Healthcare providers' knowledge and attitudes about rapid tissue donation (RTD): phase one of establishing a rapid tissue donation programme in thoracic oncology]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101340v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In preparation for the development of a rapid tissue donation (RTD) programme, we surveyed healthcare providers (HCPs) in our institution about knowledge and attitudes related to RTD with lung cancer patients. A 31-item web based survey was developed collecting data on demographics, knowledge and attitudes about RTD. The survey contained three items measuring participants&rsquo; knowledge about RTD, five items assessing attitudes towards RTD recruitment and six items assessing HCPs&rsquo; level of agreement with factors influencing decisions to discuss RTD. Response options were presented on a 5-point Likert scale. Ninety-one HCPs participated in the study. 66% indicated they had never heard of RTD prior to the survey, 78% rated knowledge of RTD as none or limited and 95.6% reported not having ethical or religious concerns about discussing RTD with patients. The majority were either not comfortable (17.8%) or not sure if they felt comfortable discussing RTD with cancer patients (42.2%). 56.1% indicated their knowledge of RTD would play an integral role in their decision to discuss RTD with patients. 71.4% reported concerns with RTD discussion and the emotional state of the patient. Physicians and nurses play an important role in initiating conversations about recruitment and donation to research that can ultimately influence uptake. Increasing HCP knowledge about RTD is a necessary step towards building an RTD programme. Our study provides important information about characteristics associated with low levels of knowledge and practice related to RTD where additional education and training may be warranted.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Schabath, M. B., McIntyre, J., Pratt, C., Gonzalez, L. E., Munoz-Antonia, T., Haura, E. B., Quinn, G. P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-04T00:02:03-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101340</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101340</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Oncology, Clinical diagnostic tests, Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Healthcare providers' knowledge and attitudes about rapid tissue donation (RTD): phase one of establishing a rapid tissue donation programme in thoracic oncology]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-04</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101200v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[In vitro eugenics]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101200v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A series of recent scientific results suggest that, in the not-too-distant future, it will be possible to create viable human gametes from human stem cells. This paper discusses the potential of this technology to make possible what I call &lsquo;<I>in vitro</I> eugenics&rsquo;: the deliberate breeding of human beings <I>in vitro</I> by fusing sperm and egg derived from different stem-cell lines to create an embryo and then deriving new gametes from stem cells derived from that embryo. Repeated iterations of this process would allow scientists to proceed through multiple human generations in the laboratory. <I>In vitro</I> eugenics might be used to study the heredity of genetic disorders and to produce cell lines of a desired character for medical applications. More controversially, it might also function as a powerful technology of &lsquo;human enhancement&rsquo; by allowing researchers to use all the techniques of selective breeding to produce individuals with a desired genotype.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sparrow, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-04T03:05:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101200</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101200</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Press releases, Clinical genetics, Genetic screening / counselling, Ethics of reproduction]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[In vitro eugenics]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-04</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101124v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Achieving new levels of recall in consent to research by combining remedial and motivational techniques]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101124v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Introduction</st><p>Research supports the efficacy of both a remedial consent procedure (corrected feedback (CF)) and a motivational consent procedure (incentives) for improving recall of informed consent to research. Although these strategies were statistically superior to standard consent, effects were modest and not clinically significant. This study examines a combined incentivised consent and CF procedure that simplifies the cognitive task and increases motivation to learn consent information.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>We randomly assigned 104 individuals consenting to an unrelated host study to a consent as usual (CAU) condition (n=52) or an incentivised CF (ICF) condition (n=52). All participants were told they would be quizzed on their consent recall following their baseline assessment and at 4&nbsp;monthly follow-ups. ICF participants were also informed that they would earn $5 for each correct answer and receive CF as needed.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>Quiz scores in the two conditions did not differ at the first administration (p=0.39, d=0.2); however, ICF scores were significantly higher at each subsequent administration (second: p=0.003, Cohen's d=0.6; third: p&lt;0.0001, d=1.4; fourth: p&lt;0.0001, d=1.6; fifth: p&lt;0.0001, d=1.8).</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>The ICF procedure increased consent recall from 72% to 83%, compared with the CAU condition in which recall decreased from 69% to 59%. This supports the statistical and clinical utility of a combined remedial and motivational consent procedure for enhancing recall of study information and human research protections.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Festinger, D. S., Dugosh, K. L., Marlowe, D. B., Clements, N. T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-04T00:02:04-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101124</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101124</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Informed consent, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Achieving new levels of recall in consent to research by combining remedial and motivational techniques]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-04</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101078v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The neglected repercussions of a physician advertising ban]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101078v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Although the adverse implications of physician advertising are the subject of a fierce and sustained debate, there is almost no scholarly discussion on the ethical repercussions of physician advertising bans. The present paper draws attention to these repercussions as they exist today in most of the world, with particular focus on three serious implications for the public: (a) uncertainty about the physician's interests, namely, that patients must trust the physician to put patient wellbeing ahead of possible gains when taking medical decisions; (b) uncertainty about alternative treatments, namely, that patients must trust in the physician's treatment decisions; and (c) uncertainty about the exclusive patient&ndash;physician relationship, namely, that patients must develop and maintain a good relationship with one physician. Physician advertising bans continue to tell the public in most of the modern world that these are irrelevant or inappropriate issues, meaning that they are effectively left to the public to resolve.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zwier, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-04-04T00:02:03-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101078</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101078</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The neglected repercussions of a physician advertising ban]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-04</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Current controversy</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100887v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA['Doctor, what would you do in my position?' Health professionals and the decision-making process in pregnancy monitoring]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100887v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Objective</st><p>Routine prenatal screening for Down syndrome challenges professional non-directiveness and patient autonomy in daily clinical practices. This paper aims to describe how professionals negotiate their role when a pregnant woman asks them to become involved in the decision-making process implied by screening.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>Forty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with gynaecologists&ndash;obstetricians (n=26) and midwives (n=15) in a large Swiss city.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>Three professional profiles were constructed along a continuum that defines the relative distance or proximity towards patients&rsquo; demands for professional involvement in the decision-making process. The first profile insists on enforcing patient responsibility, wherein the healthcare provider avoids any form of professional participation. A second profile defends the idea of a shared decision making between patients and professionals. The third highlights the intervening factors that justify professionals&rsquo; involvement in decisions.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>These results illustrate various applications of the principle of autonomy and highlight the complexity of the doctor&ndash;patient relationship amidst medical decisions today.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hertig, S. G., Cavalli, S., Burton-Jeangros, C., Elger, B. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-29T00:00:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100887</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100887</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Health policy, Child health, Screening (epidemiology), Bioethics, Health service research, Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA['Doctor, what would you do in my position?' Health professionals and the decision-making process in pregnancy monitoring]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-29</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100528v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Altruism in organ donation: an unnecessary requirement?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100528v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Altruism has long been taken to be the guiding principle of ethical organ donation in the UK, and has been used as justification for rejecting or allowing certain types of donation. We argue that, despite this prominent role, altruism has been poorly defined in policy and position documents, and used confusingly and inconsistently. Looking at how the term has been used over recent years allows us to define &lsquo;organ donation altruism&rsquo;, and comparing this with accounts in the philosophical literature highlights its theoretical shortcomings. The recent report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics reaffirmed the importance of altruism in organ donation, and offered a clearer definition. This definition is, however, more permissive than that of altruism previously seen in UK policy, and as a result allows some donations that previously have been considered unacceptable. We argue that while altruistic motivation may be desirable, it is not necessary.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moorlock, G., Ives, J., Draper, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-28T00:00:54-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100528</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100528</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Open access, Transplantation, Artificial and donated transplantation, Bioethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Altruism in organ donation: an unnecessary requirement?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-28</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Current controversy</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100391v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[FY1 doctors' ethicolegal challenges in their first year of clinical practice: an interview study]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100391v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Background</st><p>There is little evidence of junior trainee perspectives in the design and implementation of medical ethics and law (MEL) curriculum in UK medical schools.</p></sec><sec><st>Aim</st><p>To determine the ethical issues the foundation year 1 (FY1) doctors (first year after graduation) &nbsp;encountered during clinical practice and the skills and knowledge of MEL, which were useful in informing MEL curriculum development.</p></sec><sec><st>Method</st><p>The National Research Ethics Service gave ethical approval. Eighteen one-to-one interviews were conducted in each school with FY1 doctors.</p></sec><sec><st>Analysis</st><p>Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim; a thematic analysis was undertaken with the transcriptions and saturation of themes was achieved.</p></sec><sec><st>Key findings</st><p>Themes closely overlapped between the two study sites. (1) Knowing my place as an FY1 (this theme consisted of four subthemes: challenging the hierarchy, being honest when the team is titrating the truth, taking consent for unfamiliar procedures and personal safety vs competing considerations); (2) Do not attempt resuscitation)/end-of-life pathway and its implications; (3) &lsquo;You have to be there&rsquo; (contextualising ethics and law teaching through cases or role plays to allow students to explore future work situations); and (4) advanced interpersonal skills competency for ethical clinical practice.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>The data provide a snapshot of the real challenges faced by MEL FY1 doctors in early clinical practice: they may feel ill-prepared and sometimes unsupported by senior members of the team. The key themes suggest areas for development of undergraduate and postgraduate MEL curricula. We will work to develop our own curriculum accordingly. We intend to further investigate the applicability of our findings to UK medical ethics and law curriculum.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Vivekananda-Schmidt, P., Vernon, B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-28T00:00:54-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100391</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100391</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics, Postgraduate, Undergraduate]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[FY1 doctors' ethicolegal challenges in their first year of clinical practice: an interview study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-28</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Teaching and learning ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100642v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Lay REC members: patient or public?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100642v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In practice, the role of lay members of research ethics committees (RECs) often involves checking the accessibility of written materials, checking that the practical needs of participants have been considered and ensuring that a lay summary of the research will be produced. In this brief report, I argue that all these tasks would be more effectively carried out through a process of patient involvement (PI) in research projects <I>prior</I> to ethical review. Involving patients with direct experience of the topic under investigation brings added value beyond the contributions typically made by lay REC members, who are often not patients themselves. This is because PI tailors the design and conduct of research to the specific interests and concerns of the people who will actually take part in a project and make use of its findings. If a project has PI in its early stages, then a similar input from lay REC members could at best result in duplication of effort and at worst create the potential for conflict. The rationale for lay REC membership will therefore need to change from &lsquo;contributing a patient perspective&rsquo; to &lsquo;ensuring transparency and public accountability in REC decisions&rsquo;. This has implications for addressing more strategic questions about lay REC membership, including who is best recruited to the role and how they should be expected to contribute in practice.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Staley, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-27T00:00:37-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100642</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100642</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Lay REC members: patient or public?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-27</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101261v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Live liver donation, ethics and practitioners: 'I am between the two and if I do not feel comfortable about this situation, I cannot proceed']]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101261v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This paper discusses the views of 17 healthcare practitioners involved with transplantation on the ethics of live liver donations (LLDs). Donations between emotionally related donor and recipients (especially from parents to their children) increased the acceptability of an LLD compared with those between strangers. Most healthcare professionals (HCPs) disapproved of altruistic stranger donations, considering them to entail an unacceptable degree of risk taking. Participants tended to emphasise the need to balance the harms of proceeding against those of not proceeding, rather than calculating the harm-to-benefits ratio of donor versus recipient. Participants&rsquo; views suggested that a complex process of negotiation is required, which respects the autonomy of donor, recipient and HCP. Although they considered that, of the three, donor autonomy is of primary importance, they also placed considerable weight on their own autonomy. Our participants suggest that their opinions about acceptable risk taking were more objective than those of the recipient or donor and were therefore given greater weight. However, it was clear that more subjective values were also influential. Processes used in live kidney donation (LKD) were thought to be a good model for LLD, but our participants stressed that there is a danger that patients may underestimate the risks involved in LLD if it is too closely associated with LKD.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas, E. H., Bramhall, S. R., Herington, J., Draper, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-26T00:00:58-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101261</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101261</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Epidemiologic studies, Child health, Renal transplantation, Transplantation, Artificial and donated transplantation]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Live liver donation, ethics and practitioners: 'I am between the two and if I do not feel comfortable about this situation, I cannot proceed']]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100813v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Tsunami-tendenko and morality in disasters]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100813v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Disaster planning challenges our morality. Everyday rules of action may need to be suspended during large-scale disasters in favour of maxims that that may make prudential or practical sense and may even be morally preferable but emotionally hard to accept, such as <I>tsunami-tendenko</I>. This maxim dictates that the individual not stay and help others but run and preserve his or her life instead. <I>Tsunami-tendenko</I> became well known after the great East Japan earthquake on 11 March 2011, when almost all the elementary and junior high school students in one city survived the tsunami because they acted on this maxim that had been taught for several years. While <I>tsunami-tendenko</I> has been praised, two criticisms of it merit careful consideration: one, that the maxim is selfish and immoral; and two, that it goes against the natural tendency to try to save others in dire need. In this paper, I will explain the concept of <I>tsunami-tendenko</I> and then respond to these criticisms. Such ethical analysis is essential for dispelling confusion and doubts about evacuation policies in a disaster.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kodama, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-26T00:00:58-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100813</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100813</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Tsunami-tendenko and morality in disasters]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101423v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Should moral bioenhancement be compulsory? Reply to Vojin Rakic]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101423v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>In his challenging paper,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Vojin Rakic argues against our claim that &lsquo;there are strong reasons to believe&rsquo; that moral bioenhancement should be obligatory or compulsory if it can be made safe and effective.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> Rakic starts by criticising an argument that we employed against John Harris.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> In this argument we maintain, among other things, that moral bioenhancement cannot be wholly effective if our will is free in what is called an &lsquo;indeterministic&rsquo; or &lsquo;contra-causal sense&rsquo;; that is, if our choices are not fully determined by our biology and environmental circumstances. Rakic contends that we &lsquo;do not take into account the possibility that we can have an entirely free will that does not limit the effectiveness of moral bio-enhancement&rsquo;. We can use &lsquo;our freedom to decide to be morally bio-enhanced&rsquo;.</p><p>In reply, we would like to insist that if our freedom is freedom in...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Persson, I., Savulescu, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-22T00:00:40-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101423</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101423</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Should moral bioenhancement be compulsory? Reply to Vojin Rakic]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-22</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100904v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100904v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article argues against the case for regarding bodies and parts of bodies to be property. It claims that doing so assumes an individualistic conception of the body.&nbsp; It fails to acknowledge that our bodies are made up of non-human material; are unbounded; constantly changing and deeply interconnected with other bodies. It also argues that holding that our bodies are property does not recognise the fact that we have different attitudes towards different parts of our removed bodies and the contexts of their removal.&nbsp; The appropriate legal reform should, therefore, be to produce a statute which can provide a balance between the competing personal, social and interpersonal interests in different body parts.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Herring, J., Chau, P.-L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-20T00:00:43-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100904</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100904</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101346v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101346v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released a policy statement and technical report on circumcision, in both of which the organisation suggests that the health benefits conferred by the surgical removal of the foreskin in infancy definitively outweigh the risks and complications associated with the procedure. While these new documents do not positively recommend neonatal circumcision, they do paradoxically conclude that its purported benefits &lsquo;justify access to this procedure for families who choose it,&rsquo; claiming that whenever and for whatever reason it is performed, it should be covered by government health insurance. The policy statement and technical report suffer from several troubling deficiencies, ultimately undermining their credibility. These deficiencies include the exclusion of important topics and discussions, an incomplete and apparently partisan excursion through the medical literature, improper analysis of the available information, poorly documented and often inaccurate presentation of relevant findings, and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence given.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Svoboda, J. S., Van Howe, R. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-18T16:31:00-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101346</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101346</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-18</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101456v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The AAP Task Force on Neonatal Circumcision: a call for respectful dialogue]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101456v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on Circumcision published its policy statement and technical report on newborn circumcision in September 2012.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> Since that time, some individuals and groups have voiced objections to the work of the Task Force, while others have conveyed their support. The AAP task force is pleased that the policy statement and technical reports on circumcision have stimulated debate on this topic and welcomes respectful discussion and dialogue about the scientific and ethical issues that surround neonatal circumcision. We believe this is a complex issue that does not lend itself to simplistic solutions. The Task Force encourages those of all viewpoints to contribute to a vibrant, thoughtful and respectful evidence-based dialogue. We appreciate that the free exchange of competing ideas is a necessary component of scientific discovery. We also recognise that all clinical decisions carry ethical dimensions and that a...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[The AAP Task Force on Circumcision 2012, Blank, Brady, Buerk, Carlo, Diekema, Freedman, Maxwell, Wegner, LeBaron, Atwood, Craigo]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-18T16:31:00-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101456</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101456</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The AAP Task Force on Neonatal Circumcision: a call for respectful dialogue]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-18</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101067v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Disclosure 'downunder': misadventures in Australian genetic privacy law]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101067v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Along with many jurisdictions, Australia is struggling with the unique issues raised by genetic information in the context of privacy laws and medical ethics. Although the consequences of disclosure of most private information are generally confined to individuals, disclosure of genetic information has far-reaching consequences, with a credible argument that genetic relatives have a right to know about potential medical conditions. In 2006, the Privacy Act was amended to permit disclosure of an individual's genetic information, <I>without their consent</I>, to genetic relatives, if it was to avoid or mitigate serious illness. Unfortunately, additional amendments required for operation of the disclosure amendment were overlooked. Public Interest Determinations (PIDs)&mdash;delegated legislation issued by the privacy commissioner&mdash;have, instead, been used to exempt healthcare providers from provisions which would otherwise make disclosure unlawful. This paper critiques the PIDs using documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act&mdash;specifically the impact of both the PIDs and the disclosure amendment on patients and relatives<I>&mdash;</I>and confidentiality and the procedural validity of subordinate laws regulating medical privacy.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bonython, W., Arnold, B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-09T00:00:35-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101067</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101067</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Human rights]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Disclosure 'downunder': misadventures in Australian genetic privacy law]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-09</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Genetics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101174v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101174v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Informed consent is crucial in research, but potential participants may not all speak the same language, posing questions that have not been examined concerning decisions by institutional review boards (IRBs) and research ethics committees&rsquo; (RECs) about the need for researchers to translate consent forms and other study materials. Sixty US IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by The National Institutes of Health funding) were contacted, and leaders (eg, chairs) from 34 (response rate=57%) and an additional 12 members and administrators were interviewed. IRBs face a range of problems about translation of informed consent documents, questionnaires and manuals&mdash;what, when and how to translate (eg, for how many or what proportion of potential subjects), why to do so and how to decide. Difficulties can arise about translation of specific words and of broader cultural concepts regarding processes of informed consent and research, especially in the developing world. In these decisions, IRBs weigh the need for autonomy (through informed consent) and justice (to ensure fair distribution of benefits and burdens of research) against practical concerns about costs to researchers. At times IRBs may have to compromise between these competing goals. These data, the first to examine when and how IRBs/RECs require researchers to translate materials, thus highlight a range of problems with which these committees struggle, suggesting a need for further normative and empirical investigation of these domains, and consideration of guidelines to help IRBs deal with these tensions.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Klitzman, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-08T00:01:11-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101174</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101174</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-08</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101317v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[True and false concerns about neuroenhancement: a response to 'Neuroenhancers, addiction and research ethics', by D M Shaw]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101317v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In his critical comment on our paper in this journal, Shaw argues that &lsquo;false assumptions&rsquo; which we have criticised are in fact correct (&lsquo;Neuroenhancers, addiction and research ethics&rsquo;). He suggests that the risk of addiction to neuroenhancers may not be relevant, and that safety and research in regard to neuroenhancement do not pose unique ethical problems. Here, we demonstrate that Shaw ignores key empirical research results, trivialises addiction, commits logical errors, confuses addictions and passions, argues on a speculative basis, and fails to distinguish the specific ethical conditions of clinical research from those relevant for research in healthy volunteers. Therefore, Shaw's criticism cannot convince.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Heinz, A., Kipke, R., Muller, S., Wiesing, U.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-06T00:00:42-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101317</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101317</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics, Psychology and medicine, Health education]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[True and false concerns about neuroenhancement: a response to 'Neuroenhancers, addiction and research ethics', by D M Shaw]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-06</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101111v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Shifting the concept of nudge]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101111v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>Although Saghai primarily focuses on distinguishing nudges from other forms of influence, &lsquo;Salvaging the Concept of Nudge&rsquo; offers a definition of nudges that could blunt much of the moral criticism of nudging and clarify debates about specific policies.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> The definition he offers, however, restricts the class of nudges to include only those influences that counter an individual's preferences; thus, contrary to what Thaler and Sunstein say, nudges cannot be instances of libertarian paternalism.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref></p><p>According to Saghai, &lsquo;<I>A</I> nudges <I>B</I> when <I>A</I> makes it more likely that <I>B</I> will <I></I>, primarily by triggering <I>B</I>'s shallow cognitive processes, while <I>A</I>'s influence preserves <I>B</I>'s choice-set and is substantially non-controlling (i.e., preserves <I>B</I>'s freedom of choice)&rsquo;. Because the second condition&mdash;the substantial non-control condition&mdash;is supposed to ensure that nudges preserve freedom in a robust sense, this condition warrants careful attention.</p><p>According to Saghai, <I>A</I>'s influence is substantially non-controlling &lsquo;when...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Welch, B. F.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-02T00:01:23-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101111</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101111</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Shifting the concept of nudge]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101061v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Should 'nudge' be salvaged?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101061v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>Policy makers are understandably interested&mdash;for both political and moral reasons&mdash;in following Thaler and Sunstein's recommendation to use &lsquo;choice architecture&rsquo; (as in <I>Cafeteria</I>), or other &lsquo;nudges&rsquo;, to promote desirable behaviour in ways that are allegedly compatible with personal freedom.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Yashar Saghai's intricate analysis shows that simply maintaining the target's choice-set is insufficient to preserve the target's freedom when the nudge bypasses the target's deliberative capacities&mdash;as it is specifically designed to do.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> In his friendly amendment to Thaler and Sunstein's project, Saghai advances a more robust account of nudges in which fewer policies would count as nudges, but those that do count as nudges would be less troublesome. In this commentary, I briefly discuss several issues raised by Saghai's project, some of which go beyond the topic of nudges.<l type="unord"><li><p><I>How important is definitional salvaging?</I> If a &lsquo;substantially controlling&rsquo; influence were more efficacious in promoting healthy behaviours, we...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wertheimer, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-02T00:01:23-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101061</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101061</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Should 'nudge' be salvaged?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101060v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Lying and nudging]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101060v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p><I>Salvaging the Concept of Nudge</I><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> makes a number of good points about how the concept of a nudge should be understood, and a number of important distinctions in specifying more precisely the important idea of freedom of choice. As Saghai suggests, this is a first cut, and more work needs to be done in clarifying the issues so as to make the idea of a nudge a useful tool for policy purposes.</p><p>In this Commentary, I want to explore some of the difficulties that remain in getting a clear understanding of the ideas used to clarify the idea of freedom of choice, in particular, the idea that some influences are easily resistible and some are not. In particular, I am interested in the use of various deceptive modes such as lying, failure to disclose and misleading utterances. I believe that there is an important ambiguity in thinking about...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dworkin, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-02T00:01:23-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101060</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101060</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Lying and nudging]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101109v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Doing good by stealth: comments on 'Salvaging the concept of nudge']]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101109v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>In &lsquo;Salvaging the Concept of Nudge&rsquo; Yashar Saghai performs an important clarificatory task which certainly advances our philosophical and ethical understanding of nudges in public policy, and in healthcare ethics in particular.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> In this brief commentary I identify some issues which could usefully be taken forward in subsequent discussions.</p><p>A central difficulty with ethical discussions of nudging is that insufficient care is taken to distinguish two morally important features of nudges. The first, which Saghai very properly concentrates upon, is the <I>mechanism</I> of nudging. Nudges rely on psychological properties of human decision-makers as the way in which their intended effects are brought about. Much of the ethical concern with nudges focuses on just this. Whatever the motive of the nudger, or the objective of the nudge, or the ex ante or ex post ratification of the nudge by the nudge, operating through influence, impulse or non-rational features of...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ashcroft, R. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-02T00:01:23-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101109</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101109</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Doing good by stealth: comments on 'Salvaging the concept of nudge']]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101110v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Why couldn't I be nudged to dislike a Big Mac?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101110v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The central distinction in Yashar Saghai's thought-provoking article is between <I>nudges</I> and (<I>behavioural</I>) <I>prods</I>. What distinguishes a <I>prod</I> from a <I>nudge</I> is that a <I>prod</I> is &lsquo;substantially controlling&rsquo; (<I>SC</I>-ing) whereas a <I>nudge</I> is &lsquo;substantially non-controlling&rsquo; (<I>SNC</I>-ing). This has moral relevance in so far that a <I>nudge</I> but not a <I>prod</I> preserves freedom of choice.<sup>1</sup></p><p>What is it to be influenced in a <I>SNC</I>-ing way? For Saghai, a subject is <I>SNC</I>-ed if she could easily resist the influence, meaning that she can effortlessly (i) become aware of the pressure exerted and (ii) &lsquo;inhibit the triggered propensity&rsquo; if she wanted to.</p><p>In <I>The Ethics of Nudge</I>,<sup>2</sup> I discuss subliminal images sliced into films to increase, say, the consumption of Coke. Suppose that we could also use this technology to encourage healthier eating habits. I argue that subliminal images are not <I>nudges</I> because they do not satisfy &lsquo;token interference transparency&rsquo;, that is, it is not...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bovens, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-02T00:01:22-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101110</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101110</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Why couldn't I be nudged to dislike a Big Mac?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101370v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The case for a duty to research: not yet proven]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101370v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In this commentary on &lsquo;Why Participating in (Certain) Scientific Research is a Moral Duty&rsquo;, I take issue with a number of Stjernschantz Forsberg <I>et al</I>'s claims. Though abiding by the terms of a contract might be obligatory, this won't show that those terms themselves indicate a duty&mdash;even allowing that there's a contract to begin with. Meanwhile, though we might have reasons to participate, not all reasons are moral reasons, and the paper does not establish that the reasons here are moral in character.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brassington, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-01T00:00:52-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101370</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101370</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The case for a duty to research: not yet proven]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101079v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What ethical and legal principles should guide the genotyping of children as part of a personalised screening programme for common cancer?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101079v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Increased knowledge of the gene&ndash;disease associations contributing to common cancer development raises the prospect of population stratification by genotype and other risk factors. Individual risk assessments could be used to target interventions such as screening, treatment and health education. Genotyping neonates, infants or young children as part of a systematic programme would improve coverage and uptake, and facilitate a screening package that maximises potential benefits and minimises harms including overdiagnosis. This paper explores the potential justifications and risks of genotyping children for genetic variants associated with common cancer development within a personalised screening programme. It identifies the ethical and legal principles that might guide population genotyping where the predictive value of the testing is modest and associated risks might arise in the future, and considers the standards required by population screening programme validity measures (such as the Wilson and Jungner criteria including cost-effectiveness and equitable access). These are distinguished from the normative principles underpinning predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset diseases&mdash;namely, to make best-interests judgements and to preserve autonomy. While the case for population-based genotyping of neonates or young children has not yet been made, the justifications for this approach are likely to become increasingly compelling. A modified evaluative and normative framework should be developed, capturing elements from individualistic and population-based approaches. This should emphasise proper communication and genuine parental consent or informed choice, while recognising the challenges associated with making unsolicited approaches to an asymptomatic group. Such a framework would be strengthened by complementary empirical research.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hall, A. E., Chowdhury, S., Pashayan, N., Hallowell, N., Pharoah, P., Burton, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-03-01T00:00:52-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101079</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101079</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Oncology, General practice / family medicine, Child health, Screening (epidemiology), Health education, Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What ethical and legal principles should guide the genotyping of children as part of a personalised screening programme for common cancer?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Genetics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101062v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Discovering misattributed paternity in genetic counselling: different ethical perspectives in two countries]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101062v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Misattributed paternity or &lsquo;false&rsquo; paternity is when a man is wrongly thought, by himself and possibly by others, to be the biological father of a child. Nowadays, because of the progression of genetics and genomics the possibility of finding misattributed paternity during familial genetic testing has increased. In contrast to other medical information, which pertains primarily to individuals, information obtained by genetic testing and/or pedigree analysis necessarily has implications for other biologically related members in the family. Disclosing or not a misattributed paternity has a number of different biological and social consequences for the people involved. Such an issue presents important ethical and deontological challenges. The debate centres on whether or not to inform the family and, particularly, whom in the family, about the possibility that misattributed paternity might be discovered incidentally, and whether or not it is the duty of the healthcare professional (HCP) to disclose the results and to whom. In this paper, we consider the different perspectives and reported problems, and analyse their cultural, ethical and legal dimensions. We compare the position of HCPs from an Italian and British point of view, particularly their role in genetic counselling. We discuss whether the Oviedo Convention of the Council of Europe (1997) can be seen as a basis for enriching the debate.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tozzo, P., Caenazzo, L., Parker, M. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-26T00:00:46-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101062</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101062</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Child health, Bioethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Discovering misattributed paternity in genetic counselling: different ethical perspectives in two countries]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100920v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Human enhancement and perfection]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100920v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Both, bioconservatives and bioliberals, should seek a discussion about ideas of human perfection, making explicit their underlying assumptions about what makes for a good human life. This is relevant, because these basic, and often implicit ideas, inform and influence judgements and choices about human enhancement interventions. Both neglect, and polemical but inconsistent use of the complex ideas of perfection are leading to confusion within the ethical debate about human enhancement interventions, that can be avoided by tackling the notion of perfection directly. In the recent debates, bioconservatives have prominently argued against the &lsquo;pursuit of perfection&rsquo; by biotechnological means. In the first part of this paper, we show that&mdash;paradoxically&mdash;bioconservatives themselves explicitly embrace specific conceptions of human perfection and perfectionist assumptions about the good human life in order to argue against the use of enhancement technologies. Yet, we argue that the bioconservative position contains an untenable ambiguity between criticising and endorsing ideas of human perfection. Hence, they stand in need of clarifying their stance on human perfection. In the second part of the paper, we ask whether bioliberals in fact (implicitly) advocate a particular conception of perfection, or whether they are right in holding that they do not, and that discussing perfection is obsolete anyway. We show that bioliberals also rely on a specific idea of human perfection, based on the idea of autonomy. Hence, their denial of the relevance of perfection in the debate is unconvincing and has to be revised.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roduit, J. A. R., Baumann, H., Heilinger, J.-C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-22T00:00:48-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100920</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100920</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Philosophy of medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Human enhancement and perfection]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-22</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Theoretical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101257v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[We must not create beings with moral standing superior to our own]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101257v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>Ingmar Persson challenges<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> an argument in my book <I>Humanity's End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement</I><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> that harms predictably suffered by unenhanced humans justify banning radical enhancement. Here I understand radical enhancement as producing beings with mental and physical capacities that greatly exceed those of the most capable current human. I called these results of radical enhancement posthumans, though I think that Persson may be right that this is not the most felicitous name for them.</p><p>The focus of my argument was the possible improvement of moral standing brought by the radical enhancement of human cognitive and affective capacities. This would give stronger moral entitlements to benefits and stronger moral protections against harms. My opposition to varieties of enhancement that have this effect is grounded in significant harms for unenhanced humans that predictably result from a loss in relative moral standing. Significant benefits for the radically enhanced...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Agar, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-22T00:00:48-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101257</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101257</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[We must not create beings with moral standing superior to our own]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-22</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101160v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Collective action and individual choice: rethinking how we regulate narcotics and antibiotics]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101160v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Governments across the globe have squandered treasure and imprisoned millions of their own citizens by criminalising the use and sale of recreational drugs. But use of these drugs has remained relatively constant, and the primary victims are the users themselves. Meanwhile, antimicrobial drugs that once had the power to cure infections are losing their ability to do so, compromising the health of people around the world. The thesis of this essay is that policymakers should stop wasting resources trying to fight an unwinnable and morally dubious war against recreational drug users, and start shifting their attention to the serious threat posed by our collective misuse of antibiotics.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anomaly, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-20T16:30:29-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101160</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101160</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Press releases]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Collective action and individual choice: rethinking how we regulate narcotics and antibiotics]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101194v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Physicians' practices when frustrating patients' needs: a comparative study of restrictiveness in offering abortion and sedation therapy]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101194v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In this paper it is argued that physicians&rsquo; restrictive attitudes in offering abortions during 1946&ndash;1965 in Sweden were due to their private values. The values, however, were rarely presented openly. Instead physicians&rsquo; values influenced their assessment of the facts presented&mdash;that is, the women's&rsquo; trustworthiness. In this manner the physicians were able to conceal their private values and impede the women from getting what they wanted and needed. The practice was concealed from both patients and physicians and never publicly discussed. It is also argued that a similar tacit practice could currently be applied by palliative care physicians. Such practice might allow palliative care physicians to be restrictive when offering sedation therapy without appearing paternalistic or declaring conscientious objections. However, the practice runs counter to patients&rsquo; right to participate in making decisions. The women seeking abortion began to oppose the situation and eventually a new abortion law was introduced 1975. Patients at the end of life will never be able to protest against palliative care physicians&rsquo; restrictive attitudes. This is a vulnerable and weak group, unable to lodge complaints after the treatment. In order to respect patients&rsquo; autonomy, even suffering patients at the end of their lives, it is suggested that physicians should openly declare their values when it comes to providing treatments that might shorten life. Such transparency might facilitate more genuine shared decision-making and accordingly less suboptimal end-of-life care.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lynoe, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-20T00:01:19-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101194</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101194</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), Abortion, End of life decisions (palliative care), Hospice, Suicide (psychiatry), End of life decisions (ethics), Ethics of abortion, Ethics of reproduction, Research and publication ethics, Sex and sexuality, Suicide (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Physicians' practices when frustrating patients' needs: a comparative study of restrictiveness in offering abortion and sedation therapy]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100994v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The current approach of the courts]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100994v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The approach of the courts when considering proprietary (&lsquo;ownership&rsquo;) interests in human bodily material has been pragmatic and piecemeal. The general principle was initially that such material is not legally &lsquo;property&rsquo; that can be &lsquo;owned&rsquo;, but courts have recognised many exceptions. In determining disputes between individuals in particular cases, they have stated principles that are often inconsistent with those stated in other cases with different facts. Later judges have been constrained by these decisions, especially when made at appellate level. They can distinguish the facts of one case from another to achieve a different outcome, but they cannot state new principles to be applied more widely to promote consistency. This requires the will of Parliament and legislation to introduce new principles. Experience to date suggests that such legislation will need to be wide-ranging and complex, with different principles for different circumstances. There will not be one area of law that answers all the issues that arise.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Skene, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-20T00:01:19-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100994</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100994</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The current approach of the courts]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101112v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The concept of nudge and its moral significance: a reply to Ashcroft, Bovens, Dworkin, Welch and Wertheimer]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101112v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I warmly thank Richard Ashcroft, Luc Bovens, Gerald Dworkin, Brynn Welch, and Alan Wertheimer for their insightful comments on my article.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> As I do not have the space to discuss all the questions they raise, I will focus on four concerns that run through my commentators&rsquo; responses.</p><sec id="s1"><st>Cluttering our minds with trivialities</st><p>Wertheimer argues that my Choice-Set Preservation Condition is objectionable because it wrongly implies that any reduction of the choice-set is incompatible with the preservation of freedom of choice.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> He notes that removing unimportant options may enhance the influencee's &lsquo;deliberative capacities and, perhaps, her freedom&rsquo;.</p><p>I agree with Wertheimer's substantive claim, although I do not think it is incompatible with my view. As Joel Feinberg argued, freedom of choice is undermined when fecund options are eliminated.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> Fecund options are options that lead to another array of options. For instance, the choice between several universities opens...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Saghai, Y.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-20T00:01:19-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101112</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101112</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The concept of nudge and its moral significance: a reply to Ashcroft, Bovens, Dworkin, Welch and Wertheimer]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100727v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Salvaging the concept of nudge]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100727v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In recent years, &lsquo;nudge&rsquo; theory has gained increasing attention for the design of population-wide health interventions. The concept of nudge puts a label on efficacious influences that preserve freedom of choice without engaging the influencees&rsquo; deliberative capacities. Given disagreements over what it takes genuinely to preserve freedom of choice, the question is whether health influences relying on automatic cognitive processes may preserve freedom of choice in a sufficiently robust sense to be serviceable for the moral evaluation of actions and policies. In this article, I offer an argument to this effect, explicating preservation of freedom of choice in terms of choice-set preservation and noncontrol. I also briefly explore the healthcare contexts in which nudges may have priority over more controlling influences.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Saghai, Y.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-20T00:01:19-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100727</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100727</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Smoking and tobacco, Health policy, General practice / family medicine, HIV/AIDS, Child health, Sexual health, Health service research, Psychology and medicine, Health education, Smoking]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Salvaging the concept of nudge]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101092v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Taking liberties with free fall]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101092v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>In his &lsquo;Moral Enhancement, Freedom, and What We (Should) Value in Moral Behaviour&rsquo;,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> David DeGrazia sets out to defend moral bioenhancement (MB) from a number of critics, me prominently among them. Here he sets out his stall:<qd><p>Many scholars doubt what I assert: that there is nothing inherently wrong with MB. Some doubt this on the basis of a conviction that there is something inherently wrong with biomedical enhancement technologies in general. Chief among their objections are the charges that (1) biomedical enhancement is unnatural, (2) use of biomedical enhancements evinces an insufficient appreciation for human "giftedness", and (3) biomedical enhancements pose a threat to personal identity. Elsewhere I have attempted to neutralize these objections. Here I will address a set of concerns that are directed at MB in particular and appeal to the nature and value of human freedom.</p></qd></p><p>Let me make clear at once that I do...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Harris, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-19T00:00:43-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101092</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101092</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Taking liberties with free fall]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-19</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101268v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Doubting Thomas]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101268v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Obituary: Thomas S Szasz (15 April 1920 to 8 September 2012)</p><p>Thomas Szasz, the radical critic of state-supported psychiatry, and root and branch sceptic about mental illness, died in September 2012. Based on the obituary<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> and editorial comment in <I>The Lancet</I><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> and the response his work commonly elicits, it is evident that there will be mixed reviews of his impact and of the cogency of his position.</p><p>Certainly, some have seen him as a notable figure from the past. There is a sense in which, as far as Szasz's critique of psychiatry goes, it did not really change at all in its essence from the time it was first explicitly expressed in his writings of the 1960s right up to his last publications and talks in the 2010s. He started his 1960 paper <I>The Myth of Mental Illness</I><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> with the assertion that there is no such...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pickering, N. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-19T00:00:43-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101268</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101268</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Doubting Thomas]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-19</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Obituary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100700v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100700v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I discuss the argument of Persson and Savulescu that moral enhancement ought to accompany cognitive enhancement, as well as briefly addressing critiques of this argument, notably by John Harris. I argue that Harris, who believes that cognitive enhancement is largely sufficient for making us behave more morally, might be disposing too easily of the great quandary of our moral existence: the gap between what we do and what we believe is morally right to do. In that regard, Persson and Savulescu's position has the potential to offer more. However, I question Persson and Savulescu's proposal of compulsory moral enhancement (a conception they used to promote), proposing the alternative of voluntary moral enhancement.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rakic, V.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-14T00:00:36-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100700</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100700</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Bioethics, Psychology and medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-14</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Neuroethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101175v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The outsider: the rogue scientist as terrorist]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101175v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>John O'Neill, a molecular biologist in Frank Herbert's 1982 novel &lsquo;The White Plague&rsquo;,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> seeks retributive justice for the death of his wife in a terrorist bomb blast by infecting those he holds responsible with an engineered pathogen that kills only women. The eponymous plague soon spreads uncontrollably with predictable catastrophic global consequences.</p><p>When the definitive history of armed conflict is written, the chapter on biological weapons will make for a long and disagreeable read. Now, happily, disavowed by most nations under the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, the presumption is that any future deployment would be at the hands of rogue states, criminal gangs or perhaps terrorist organisations, to whom they could appeal because of their apparent ease of preparation and dissemination coupled with their sinister reputation and potential for causing mass casualties.</p><p>But Herbert's villain is different. He is a trained scientist possessing expert skills and with access to...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Flower, R. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-13T00:00:50-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101175</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101175</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The outsider: the rogue scientist as terrorist]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-13</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Viewpoint and current controversy</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100619v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Ethical decision making in intensive care units: a burnout risk factor? Results from a multicentre study conducted with physicians and nurses]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100619v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Background</st><p>Ethical decision making in intensive care is a demanding task. The need to proceed to ethical decision is considered to be a stress factor that may lead to burnout. The aim of this study is to explore the ethical problems that may increase burnout levels among physicians and nurses working in Portuguese intensive care units (ICUs). A quantitative, multicentre, correlational study was conducted among 300 professionals.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>The most crucial ethical decisions made by professionals working in ICU were related to communication, withholding or withdrawing treatments and terminal sedation. A positive relation was found between ethical decision making and burnout in nurses, namely, between burnout and the need to withdraw treatments (p=0.032), to withhold treatments (p=0.002) and to proceed to terminal sedation (p=0.005). This did not apply to physicians. Emotional exhaustion was the burnout subdimension most affected by the ethical decision. The nurses' lack of involvement in ethical decision making was identified as a risk factor. Nevertheless, in comparison with nurses (6%), it was the physicians (34%) who more keenly felt the need to proceed to ethical decisions in ICU.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>Ethical problems were reported at different levels by physicians and nurses. The type of ethical decisions made by nurses working in Portuguese ICUs had an impact on burnout levels. This did not apply to physicians. This study highlights the need for education in the field of ethics in ICUs and the need to foster inter-disciplinary discussion so as to encourage ethical team deliberation in order to prevent burnout.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Teixeira, C., Ribeiro, O., Fonseca, A. M., Carvalho, A. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-13T00:00:50-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100619</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100619</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Emergency medicine, Health informatics, End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), Nursing, End of life decisions (palliative care), Adult intensive care, Assisted dying, End of life decisions (ethics), Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Ethical decision making in intensive care units: a burnout risk factor? Results from a multicentre study conducted with physicians and nurses]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-13</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101117v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The best interests of persistently vegetative patients: to die rather that to live?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101117v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Adults without the capacity to make their own medical decisions have their rights protected under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) in the UK. The underlying principle of the court's decisions is the best interests test, and the evaluation of best interests is a welfare appraisal. Although the House of Lords in the well-known case of Bland held that the decision to withhold treatment for patients in a persistent vegetative state should not be based on their best interests, judges in recent cases have still held that the best interests of persistently vegetative patients demand that the right to die with dignity prevails over society's interest to preserve life. The basis of suggesting that it is in the best interests for one who is alive (although vegetative) in peace to die in peace is weak. Even if it may not be in their best interests to live on, it may not be so to die either. The phrase &lsquo;the right to dignity/to die with dignity&rsquo; has been misused as a trump card to justify the speculation that a vegetative patient would necessarily refuse to live on machines. Without disrespect to the court's decision, we argue that the use of the best interests test to authorise withdrawing/withholding treatment from persistently vegetative patients without an advance directive is problematic. We propose that the court could have reached the same decision by considering only the futility of treatment without working through the controversial best interests of the patient.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chan, T. K., Tipoe, G. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-06T00:00:43-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101117</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101117</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), End of life decisions (palliative care), Sports and exercise medicine, End of life decisions (ethics), Human rights]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The best interests of persistently vegetative patients: to die rather that to live?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-06</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Viewpoint and current controversy</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100729v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a study of the multivariate effects of healthcare training, patient characteristics, religion and locus of control]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100729v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Public and healthcare professionals differ in their attitudes towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS), the legal status of which is currently in the spotlight in the UK. In addition to medical training and experience, religiosity, locus of control and patient characteristics (eg, patient age, pain levels, number of euthanasia requests) are known influencing factors. Previous research tends toward basic designs reporting on attitudes in the context of just one or two potentially influencing factors; we aimed to test the comparative importance of a larger range of variables in a sample of nursing trainees and non-nursing controls. One hundred and fifty-one undergraduate students (early-stage nursing training, late-stage nursing training and non-nursing controls) were approached on a UK university campus and asked to complete a self-report questionnaire. Participants were of mixed gender and were on average 25.5&nbsp;years old. No significant differences in attitude were found between nursing and non-nursing students. There was a significant positive correlation between higher religiosity and positive attitude toward euthanasia (r=0.19, p&lt;0.05) and a significant negative relationship between internal locus of control and positive attitude toward PAS (r=&ndash;0.263, p&lt;0.01). Multivariate analyses revealed differing predictor models for attitudes towards euthanasia and PAS, and confirm the importance of individual differences in determining these attitudes. The unexpected direction of association between religiosity and attitudes may reflect a broader cultural shift in attitudes since earlier research in this area. Furthermore, these findings suggest it possible that experience, more than training itself, may be a bigger influence on attitudinal differences in healthcare professionals.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hains, C.-A. M., Hulbert-Williams, N. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-02T08:38:35-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100729</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100729</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), End of life decisions (palliative care), Hospice, Suicide (psychiatry), Assisted dying, End of life decisions (ethics), Research and publication ethics, Undergraduate, Education, medical, Suicide (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a study of the multivariate effects of healthcare training, patient characteristics, religion and locus of control]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100871v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Duelling with doctors, restoring honour and avoiding shame? A cross-sectional study of sick-listed patients' experiences of negative healthcare encounters with special reference to feeling wronged and shame]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100871v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Aims</st><p>The aim of this study was to examine if it is plausible to interpret the appearance of shame in a Swedish healthcare setting as a reaction to having one's honour wronged.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>Using a questionnaire, we studied answers from a sample of long-term sick-listed patients who had experienced negative encounters (n=1628) and of these 64% also felt wronged. We used feeling wronged to examine emotional reactions such as feeling ashamed and made the assumption that feeling shame could be associated with having one's honour wronged. In statistical analyses relative risks (RRs) were computed, adjusting for age, sex, disease-labelling, educational levels, as well as their 95% CI.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>Approximately half of those who had been wronged stated that they also felt shame and of those who felt shame, 93% (CI 91 to 95) felt that they had been wronged. The RR was 4.5 (CI 3.0 to 6.8) for shame when wronged. This can be compared with the other emotional reactions where the RRs were between 1.1 (CI 0.9 to 1.3)&ndash;1.4 (CI 1.2 to 1.7). We found no association between country of birth and feeling shame after having experienced negative encounters.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>We found that the RR of feeling shame when wronged was significantly higher compared with other feelings. Along with theoretical considerations, and the specific types of negative encounters associated with shame, the results indicate that our research hypothesis might be plausible. We think that the results deserve to be used as point of departure for future research.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lynoe, N., Wessel, M., Olsson, D., Alexanderson, K., Tannsjo, T., Juth, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-02-02T08:38:35-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100871</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100871</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Duelling with doctors, restoring honour and avoiding shame? A cross-sectional study of sick-listed patients' experiences of negative healthcare encounters with special reference to feeling wronged and shame]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-02-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100859v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Why participating in (certain) scientific research is a moral duty]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100859v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Our starting point in this article is the debate between John Harris and Iain Brassington on whether or not there is a duty to take part in scientific research. We consider the arguments that have been put forward based on fairness and a duty to rescue, and suggest an alternative justification grounded in a hypothetical agreement: that is, because effective healthcare cannot be taken for granted, but requires continuous medical research, and nobody knows what kind of healthcare they will need, participating in research should be viewed from the perspective of a social contract, based on our mutual need for medical advances.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stjernschantz Forsberg, J., Hansson, M. G., Eriksson, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-31T00:01:42-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100859</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100859</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Why participating in (certain) scientific research is a moral duty]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-31</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101108v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Non-completion and informed consent]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101108v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There is a good deal of biomedical research that does not produce scientifically useful data because it fails to recruit a sufficient number of subjects. This fact is typically not disclosed to prospective subjects. In general, the guidance about consent concerns the information required to make intelligent self-interested decisions and ignores some of the information required for intelligent altruistic decisions. Bioethics has worried about the &lsquo;therapeutic misconception&rsquo;, but has ignored the &lsquo;completion misconception&rsquo;. This article argues that, other things being equal, prospective subjects should be informed about the possibility of non-completion as part of the standard consent process if (1) it is or should be anticipatable that there is a non-trivial possibility of non-completion and (2) that information is likely to be relevant to a prospective subject's decision to consent. The article then considers several objections to the argument, including the objection that disclosing non-completion information would make recruitment even more difficult.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wertheimer, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-31T00:01:42-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101108</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101108</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Oncology, Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Non-completion and informed consent]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-31</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101094v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[When bad people do good things: will moral enhancement make the world a better place?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101094v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>In his thoughtful defence of very modest moral enhancement, David DeGrazia<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> makes the following assumption: &lsquo;Behavioural improvement (ie, &lsquo;greater conformity to appropriate moral norms and therefore a higher frequency of right action&rsquo;) is highly desirable in the interest of making the world a better place and securing better lives for human beings and other sentient beings&rsquo;. Later in the paper, he gives a list of some psychological characteristics that &lsquo;all reasonable people can agree ... represent moral defects&rsquo;. I think I am a reasonable person, and I agree that most if not all items on the lists do represent moral defects&mdash;I certainly would regard them as such in a close family member or friend. But if I were in the business of &lsquo;making the world a better place and securing better lives for human beings and other sentient beings&rsquo;, I would hesitate to prescribe moral enhancement (or therapy&mdash;the...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wasserman, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-31T00:01:42-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101094</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101094</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[When bad people do good things: will moral enhancement make the world a better place?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-31</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100815v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Body parts in property theory: an integrated framework]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100815v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The role of property theory as a framework for analysis and regulation of body parts has become a debate of topical importance because of the emergence of biomedical technologies that utilise body parts, and also because the application of the concept of property, even with respect to historically and traditionally accepted forms of property, raises serious challenges to the property analyst. However, there is another reason for the topicality of property in relation to body parts: a proprietary approach confers on a claimant the advantage of continuing control that is tellingly lacking in non-property frameworks underpinned, for instance, by consent, negligence, privacy and unjust enrichment rules. In some circumstances, such as an unauthorised blood test performed on a blood sample obtained with consent, the continuing control provided by property law might be the only chance a claimant has to obtain a remedy. Economy of space, however, requires that only a prolegomenon on body parts and property theory is given below. Thus, the analysis begins by providing in outline a framework for comprehensive analysis of body parts within the realm of property theory; thereafter, the author engages with the normative question of whether body parts or rights exercisable over body parts could be admitted into the category of property.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nwabueze, R. N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-31T00:01:42-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100815</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100815</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Body parts in property theory: an integrated framework]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-31</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100302v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The ethics of imperfect cures: models of service delivery and patient vulnerability]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100302v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A rising number of patients require continuing or palliative services and this means that they will need to transition from one model of healthcare delivery to another. If it is generally recognised that patient vulnerability to inadequate services increases when the setting in which patient receives care changes, it is usually taken to be the result of poor coordination of services or personnel. Recognising that an integrated system is essential to adequate access, the point that I put forward in this paper is that the centrality of acute care services affects the way in which chronic and palliative services are structured and, consequently, their availability. I argue that the problem originates in the manner in which some of the foundational concepts of the acute care model are imported into the other models of care delivery.</p><p>In order to make this case, I review the three main models of healthcare service delivery by focusing my analysis along three axes: the goal of the care model; the predominant understanding of autonomy implicit in the model; and, the main actors in the care relationship. By examining how the various concepts translate from one model to the next, I discuss what I identify to be one of the main conceptual obstacles to less problematic transitioning, the notion of autonomy and the corresponding view of the patient as an isolated agent.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lanoix, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-31T00:01:42-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100302</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100302</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Adult intensive care]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The ethics of imperfect cures: models of service delivery and patient vulnerability]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-31</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101332v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Conscientious objection by Muslim students startling]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2013-101332v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>I read Robert Card's recent paper entitled &lsquo;<I>Is there no alternative? Conscientious objection by medical students</I>&rsquo; with great interest.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> That Muslim students in America are able to conscientiously object (and this was entertained) to the cross-gender consultation is somewhat startling. I have just left the Middle East, where I worked as a medical educator for five-and-a-half&nbsp;years (2006&ndash;2011), and, to the best of my knowledge, even in the conservative, gender-segregated traditional Muslim culture of the United Arab Emirates, not once did a male or female student refuse to examine a patient of the opposite sex.</p><p>Several issues, many of which have been described by Padela and del Pozo,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> should be taken into consideration in relation to Muslim students&rsquo; conscientious objection to the cross-gender consultation on religious grounds. Although Islam prohibits touching or physical contact by the opposite gender, unless appropriate (eg, by a spouse), in some circumstances,...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McLean, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-30T00:00:40-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2013-101332</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2013-101332</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Undergraduate]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Conscientious objection by Muslim students startling]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100975v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The fox and the grapes: an Anglo-Irish perspective on conscientious objection to the supply of emergency hormonal contraception without prescription]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100975v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) has been available from pharmacies in the UK without prescription for 11&nbsp;years. In the Republic of Ireland this service was made available in 2011. In both jurisdictions the respective regulators have included &lsquo;conscience clauses&rsquo;, which allow pharmacists to opt out of providing EHC on religious or moral grounds providing certain criteria are met. In effect, conscientious objectors must refer patients to other providers who are willing to supply these medicines. Inclusion of such clauses leads to a cycle of cognitive dissonance on behalf of both parties. Objectors convince themselves of the existence of a moral difference between supply of EHC and referral to another supplier, while the regulators must feign satisfaction that a form of regulation lacking universality will not lead to adverse consequences in the long term. We contend that whichever of these two parties truly believes in that which they purport to must act to end this unsatisfactory status quo. Either the regulators must compel all pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception to all suitable patients who request it, or a pharmacist must refuse either to supply EHC or to refer the patient to an alternative supplier and challenge any subsequent sanctions imposed by their regulator.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gallagher, C. T., Holton, A., McDonald, L. J., Gallagher, P. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-30T16:30:44-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100975</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100975</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Emergency medicine, Press releases, Sexual health, Ethics of abortion, Ethics of reproduction, Sex and sexuality]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The fox and the grapes: an Anglo-Irish perspective on conscientious objection to the supply of emergency hormonal contraception without prescription]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101182v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101182v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The principle of the child's right to an open future was first proposed by the legal philosopher Joel Feinberg and developed further by bioethicist Dena Davis. The principle holds that children possess a unique class of rights called rights in trust&mdash;rights that they cannot yet exercise, but which they will be able to exercise when they reach maturity. Parents should not, therefore, take actions that permanently foreclose on or pre-empt the future options of their children, but leave them the greatest possible scope for exercising personal life choices in adulthood. Davis particularly applies the principle to genetic counselling, arguing that parents should not take deliberate steps to create physically abnormal children, and to religion, arguing that while parents are entitled to bring their children up in accordance with their own values, they are not entitled to inflict physical or mental harm, neither by omission nor commission. In this paper, I aim to elucidate the open future principle, and consider whether it is applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whether performed for cultural/religious or for prophylactic/health reasons. I argue that the principle is highly applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision, and conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision would be a violation of the child's right to an open future, and thus objectionable from both an ethical and a human rights perspective.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Darby, R. J. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-30T00:00:40-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101182</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101182</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Disability, Bioethics, Human rights]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101004v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Attitudes towards euthanasia in Iran: the role of altruism]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101004v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Objective</st><p>Altruism is arguably the quintessential moral trait, involving willingness to benefit others and unwillingness to harm them. In this study, I explored how altruism and other personality variables relate to acceptance of euthanasia. In addition, I investigated the role of culture in attitudes to subcategorical distinctions of euthanasia.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>190 Iranian students completed the Attitude Towards Euthanasia scale, the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised, and an interest in religion measure.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>Higher scores on altruism, Honesty&ndash;Humility, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and religiousness were associated with viewing euthanasia as unacceptable. As expected, altruism explained unique variance in euthanasia attitude beyond gender, religiosity and broad personality factors.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>Cultural and individual differences should be taken into consideration in moral psychology research and end-of-life decision-making.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aghababaei, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-30T00:00:40-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101004</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101004</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), End of life decisions (palliative care), Assisted dying, End of life decisions (ethics), Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Attitudes towards euthanasia in Iran: the role of altruism]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101142v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Family planning in Brazil: why not tubal sterilisation during childbirth?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101142v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Sterilisation is the most desired method of contraception worldwide. In 1996, the Brazilian Congress approved a family planning law that legitimised female and male sterilisation, but forbade sterilisation during childbirth. As a result of this law, procedures currently occur in a clandestine nature upon payment. Despite the law, sterilisations continue to be performed during caesarean sections. The permanence of the method is an important consideration; therefore, information about other methods must be made available. Tubal sterilisation must not be the only choice. We argue that review of this restriction will not contribute to the increase in caesarean sections but will allow for greater sterilisation choice for men and women.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Soares, L. C., Brollo, J. L. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-29T00:00:54-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101142</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101142</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Child health]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Family planning in Brazil: why not tubal sterilisation during childbirth?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-29</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101077v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Participant experience of invasive research in adults with intellectual disability]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101077v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Clinical research is a necessity if effective and safe treatments are to be developed. However, this may well include the need for research that is best described as &lsquo;invasive&rsquo; in that it may be associated with some discomfort or inconvenience. Limitations in the undertaking of invasive research involving people with intellectual disabilities (ID) are perhaps related to anxieties within the academic community and among ethics committees; however, the consequence of this neglect is that innovative treatments specific to people with ID may not be developed. Such concerns are likely to continue while there is limited published knowledge regarding the actual experiences of people with ID who have participated in invasive clinical research. As part of a pilot study trialling the novel use of a surgically inserted device to curb overeating in people with Prader&ndash;Willi syndrome (PWS) we have investigated the experience of research through semistructured qualitative interviews involving three participants and their carers. Thematic analysis revealed that the adults with PWS and their family carers rated their participation positively, seeing it as a rewarding and enriching experience. This brief report discusses findings from our interview data in order to highlight strategies which may ensure that research is acceptable to participants, meets the necessary ethical standards and is able to achieve the aims set out by the researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first study to record experiences directly from people with PWS and their carers regarding their involvement in invasive clinical research.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McAllister, C. J., Kelly, C. L., Manning, K. E., Holland, A. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-26T00:02:22-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101077</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101077</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine, Psychology and medicine, Health education, Obesity (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Participant experience of invasive research in adults with intellectual disability]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100924v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Which newborns are too expensive to treat? A response to Dominic Wilkinson]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100924v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><st>Introduction</st><p>Thanks to Dominic Wilkinson, a formidable clinician-philosopher, for his considered response, and especially for highlighting my work's translatability outside of an (explicitly) theological context. In part, because bioethics&rsquo; pioneers were theologians, the discipline misses something important when theology is not an integral part of the conversation. I do not have the space to do an in-depth response,<sup><cross-ref type="fn" refid="fn1">i</cross-ref></sup> so the best I can do is use some assertions to gesture at a few key points.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><st>Relational anthropology and the best interests of the patient</st><p>Wilkinson spends significant time critiquing my claim that the Social Quality of Life Model (sQOL) is consistent with a healthcare provider acting in the best interest of her patient. And though he notes that my general argument goes through without this claim, the idea that clinicians should always act in the (individualistically considered) best interests of their patients is so commonly held that this topic...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Camosy, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-26T00:02:22-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100924</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100924</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Which newborns are too expensive to treat? A response to Dominic Wilkinson]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100745v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Which newborn infants are too expensive to treat? Camosy and rationing in intensive care]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100745v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Are there some newborn infants whose short- and long-term care costs are so great that treatment should not be provided and they should be allowed to die? Public discourse and academic debate about the ethics of newborn intensive care has often shied away from this question. There has been enough ink spilt over whether or when for the infant's sake it might be better not to provide life-saving treatment. The further question of not saving infants because of inadequate resources has seemed too difficult, too controversial, or perhaps too outrageous to even consider. However, Roman Catholic ethicist Charles Camosy has recently challenged this, arguing that costs should be a primary consideration in decision-making in neonatal intensive care.</p><p>In the first part of this paper I will outline and critique Camosy's central argument, which he calls the &lsquo;social quality of life (sQOL)&rsquo; model. Although there are some conceptual problems with the way the argument is presented, even those who do not share Camosy's Catholic background have good reason to accept his key point that resources should be considered in intensive care treatment decisions for all patients. In the second part of the paper, I explore the ways in which we might identify which infants are too expensive to treat. I argue that both traditional personal &lsquo;quality of life&rsquo; and Camosy's &lsquo;sQOL&rsquo; should factor into these decisions, and I outline two practical proposals.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wilkinson, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-26T00:02:22-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100745</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100745</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Child health, Adult intensive care]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Which newborn infants are too expensive to treat? Camosy and rationing in intensive care]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101235v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Physician emigration, population health and public policies]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101235v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><st>Introduction</st><p>The consequences of poor access and quality of healthcare services in developing countries are widely recognised by international agencies such as WHO.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Moreover, with the HIV/AIDS pandemic wreaking havoc in sub-Saharan Africa, availability of trained physicians is essential for providing antiretroviral treatment to large numbers of individuals.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> Owing to emigration of physicians and nurses from developing countries, WHO has suggested codes for recruitment of health personnel by developed countries.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> The biomedical and social science issues surrounding the benefits of healthcare uptake for health outcomes are complex. It is therefore puzzling that Javier Hidalgo in his article<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R4">4</cross-ref> dismisses the need for meticulous health policy formulation. Instead, he contrives a &lsquo;defence&rsquo; for the practice of recruitment of healthcare workers by developed countries through a misleading interpretation of the evidence from country-level data presented by Bhargava and Docquier.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R5">5</cross-ref> It would be useful...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bhargava, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-26T00:02:22-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101235</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101235</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Physician emigration, population health and public policies]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100427v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Authenticity or autonomy? When deep brain stimulation causes a dilemma]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100427v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>While deep brain stimulation (DBS) for patients with Parkinson's disease has typically raised ethical questions about autonomy, accountability and personal identity, recent research indicates that we need to begin taking into account issues surrounding the patients&rsquo; feelings of authenticity and alienation as well. In order to bring out the relevance of this dimension to ethical considerations of DBS, I analyse a recent case study of a Dutch patient who, as a result of DBS, faced a dilemma between autonomy and authenticity. This case study is meant to point out the normatively meaningful tension patients under DBS experience between authenticity and autonomy.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kraemer, F.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-26T00:02:21-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100427</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100427</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Authenticity or autonomy? When deep brain stimulation causes a dilemma]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Neuroethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100821v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Preventive misconception and adolescents' knowledge about HIV vaccine trials]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100821v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Objective</st><p>Adolescents have had very limited access to research on biomedical prevention interventions despite high rates of HIV acquisition. One concern is that adolescents are a vulnerable population, and trials carry a possibility of harm, requiring investigators to take additional precautions. Of particular concern is preventive misconception, or the overestimation of personal protection that is afforded by enrolment in a prevention intervention trial.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>As part of a larger study of preventive misconception in adolescent HIV vaccine trials, we interviewed 33 male and female 16&ndash;19-year-olds who have sex with men. Participants underwent a simulated HIV vaccine trial consent process, and then completed a semistructured interview about their understanding and opinions related to enrolment in a HIV vaccine trial. A grounded theory analysis looked for shared concepts, and focused on the content and process of adolescent participants&rsquo; understanding of HIV vaccination and the components of preventive misconception, including experiment, placebo and randomisation.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>Across interviews, adolescents demonstrated active processing of information, in which they questioned the interviewer, verbally worked out their answers based upon information provided, and corrected themselves. We observed a wide variety of understanding of research concepts. While most understood experiment and placebo, fewer understood randomisation. All understood the need for safer sex even if they did not understand the more basic concepts.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>Education about basic concepts related to clinical trials, time to absorb materials and assessment of understanding may be necessary in future biomedical prevention trials.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ott, M. A., Alexander, A. B., Lally, M., Steever, J. B., Zimet, G. D., the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network (ATN) for HIV/AIDS Interventions]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-25T00:01:38-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100821</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100821</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Clinical trials (epidemiology), HIV/AIDS, Child health, Sexual health, Health education]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Preventive misconception and adolescents' knowledge about HIV vaccine trials]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101157v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101157v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The enhancement of human traits has received academic attention for decades, but only recently has moral enhancement using biomedical means &ndash; <I>moral bioenhancement</I> (MB) &ndash; entered the discussion. After explaining why we ought to take the possibility of MB seriously, the paper considers the shape and content of moral improvement, addressing at some length a challenge presented by reasonable moral pluralism. The discussion then proceeds to this question: Assuming MB were safe, effective, and universally available, would it be morally desirable? In particular, would it pose an unacceptable threat to human freedom? After defending a negative answer to the latter question &ndash; which requires an investigation into the nature and value of human freedom &ndash; and arguing that there is nothing inherently wrong with MB, the paper closes with reflections on what we should value in moral behaviour.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[DeGrazia, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-25T00:01:38-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101157</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101157</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Psychology and medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101096v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Moral bioenhancement: a neuroscientific perspective]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101096v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Can advances in neuroscience be harnessed to enhance human moral capacities? And if so, should they? De Grazia explores these questions in &lsquo;Moral Enhancement, Freedom, and What We (Should) Value in Moral Behaviour&rsquo;.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Here, I offer a neuroscientist's perspective on the state of the art of moral bioenhancement, and highlight some of the practical challenges facing the development of moral bioenhancement technologies.</p><p>The science of moral bioenhancement is in its infancy. Laboratory studies of human morality usually employ highly simplified models aimed at measuring just one facet of a cognitive process that is relevant for morality. These studies have certainly deepened our understanding of the nature of moral behaviour, but it is important to avoid overstating the conclusions of any single study. De Grazia cites several purported examples of &lsquo;non-traditional means of moral enhancement&rsquo;, including one of my own studies. According to De Grazia, we showed that &lsquo;selective serotonin...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Crockett, M. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-25T00:01:38-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101096</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101096</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Moral bioenhancement: a neuroscientific perspective]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101153v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A question about defining moral bioenhancement]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101153v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>David DeGrazia<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> offers, to my mind, a decisive response to the bioconservative suggestion that moral bioenhancement (MB) threatens human freedom or undermines its value. In this brief commentary, I take issue with DeGrazia's way of defining MB. A different concept of MB exposes a danger missed by his analysis.</p><sec id="s1"><st>Two ways to define MB</st><p>DeGrazia presents MB as a form of enhancement directed at moral capacities. There are, in the philosophical literature, two broad approaches to defining human enhancement. Simplifying somewhat, one account identifies enhancement with improvement. DeGrazia joins other advocates of MB in preferring this type of account, defining a human enhancement as &lsquo;any deliberate intervention that aims to improve an existing capacity, select for a desired capacity, or create a new capacity in a human being.&rsquo;<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref></p><p>An alternative approach relativises enhancement to human norms.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> In this view, improvements up to levels...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Agar, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-25T00:01:38-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101153</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101153</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A question about defining moral bioenhancement]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101129v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Is it ethical to invite compatible pairs to participate in exchange programmes?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101129v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Living kidney transplantation offers the best results for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This form of transplantation is no longer restricted to genetically or emotionally related donors, as shown by the acceptance of non-directed living anonymous donors, and the development of exchange programmes (EPs). EPs make it possible to perform living kidney transplantation among incompatible pairs, but while such programmes can help increase living organ donation, they can also create a degree of unfairness. Kidney transplant recipients in the O blood group are at a disadvantage when it comes to EPs because they can only receive organs from O donors, whereas O donors are universal donors. This poses a major challenge in terms of distributive justice and equity. A way to remedy this situation is through altruistic unbalanced paired kidney exchange (AUPKE), in which a compatible pair consisting of an O blood group donor and a non-O recipient is invited to participate in an EP. Although the AUPKE approach appears fairer for O recipients, it still raises ethical questions. How does this type of exchange affect the donor/recipient gift relationship? Should recipients in compatible pairs receive a &lsquo;better organ&rsquo; than the one they would otherwise have received from their intended donor? Finally, what is the role of transplant teams in AUPKE? This article will examine the organisational and ethical challenges associated with EPs and AUPKE, and compare different EP policies in countries where such programmes exist.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fortin, M.-C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-24T00:01:31-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101129</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101129</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Renal transplantation, Transplantation, Artificial and donated transplantation]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Is it ethical to invite compatible pairs to participate in exchange programmes?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-24</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100989v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[You cannot have your normal functioning cake and eat it too]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100989v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Does biomedical enhancement challenge justice in health care? This paper argues that health care justice based on the concept of normal functioning is inadequate if enhancements are widespread. Two different interpretations of normal functioning are distinguished: the "species typical" vs. the "normal cooperator" account, showing that each version of the theory fails to account for certain egalitarian intuitions about help and assistance owed to people with health needs, where enhancements are widespread.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Loi, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-24T00:01:31-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100989</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100989</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[You cannot have your normal functioning cake and eat it too]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-24</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Justice</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101138v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The active recruitment of health workers: a commentary]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101138v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The article &lsquo;The active recruitment of health workers: a defence&rsquo; by Hidalgo<sup>1</sup> discusses a highly interesting and relevant topic. It provides, in clear language, a mix of ethical arguments and empirical data, which are used to assess the validity of two arguments that are invoked by some who claim that the active recruitment of health workers from poor countries is morally impermissible. However, the article has two main shortcomings: (1) the analysis is too narrow (perhaps because the author has focused only on arguments that can be found in the literature rather than also identifying and considering additional conceivable arguments); and (2) various elements of the analysis are problematic.</p><sec id="s1"><st>The analysis is too narrow</st><p>If the question is whether promoting a &lsquo;medical brain-drain&rsquo; from poor to rich countries is morally acceptable, then it is not only the actions of the persons soliciting relocation and those considering relocation that need to be...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterckx, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-24T00:00:57-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101138</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101138</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The active recruitment of health workers: a commentary]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-24</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101075v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A study of consent for participation in a non-therapeutic study in the pediatric intensive care population]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101075v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Objective</st><p>To document the legal guardian-related barriers to consent procurement, and their stated reasons for non-participation in a paediatric critical care research study.</p></sec><sec><st>Study design</st><p>A multicentre, prospective, cohort study.</p></sec><sec><st>Participants</st><p>Legal guardians of children who participated in a multicentre study on adrenal insufficiency in paediatric critical illness. Data were collected on all consent encounters in the main study.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>Screening data, reasons for consent not being obtained, paediatric risk of mortality (illness severity) scores and age were collected on all 1707 patients eligible for participation in the Adrenal Insufficiency Study.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>The main barriers to approaching legal guardians for consent were lack of availability of the legal guardians (321/1707) and language barriers (84/1707). Legal guardians of 917 patients were approached with an overall consent rate of 42% (range 14&ndash;56% across the seven sites). 81% of the 528 legal guardians who declined consent provided an unsolicited reason for refusal. The three most commonly stated reasons were: being overwhelmed (117/429), not wanting anything else done to their child (63/429) and not wanting an additional medication (53/429). In addition, 14.2% cited research-related concerns as the reason for their non-participation.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>Barriers to consent procurement in a non-therapeutic paediatric critical care study appear to occur at many levels with lack of availability of legal guardians, and legal guardians feeling overwhelmed, being the most commonly recorded reasons. Further research into the impact of these findings on the validity and generalisability of the results of such studies is necessary prior to the development and study of future consent models.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Menon, K., Ward, R., for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-23T00:01:03-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101075</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101075</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Epidemiologic studies, Adult intensive care, Paediatric intensive care, Screening (epidemiology), Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine, Screening (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A study of consent for participation in a non-therapeutic study in the pediatric intensive care population]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-23</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100697v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evaluation of clinical ethics support services and its normativity]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100697v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) has attracted considerable interest in recent decades. However, few evaluation studies are explicit about normative presuppositions which underlie the goals and the research design of CESS evaluation. In this paper, we provide an account of normative premises of different approaches to CESS evaluation and argue that normativity should be a focus of considerations when designing and conducting evaluation research of CESS. In a first step, we present three different approaches to CESS evaluation from published literature. Next to a brief sketch of the well-established approaches of &lsquo;descriptive evaluation&rsquo; and &lsquo;evaluation of outcomes&rsquo;, we will give a more detailed description of a third approach to evaluation&mdash;&lsquo;reconstructing quality norms of CESS&rsquo;&mdash;which is explicit about the normative presuppositions of its research (design). In the subsequent section, we will analyse the normative premises of each of the three approaches to CESS evaluation. We will conclude with a brief argument for more sensitivity towards the normativity of CESS and its evaluation research.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Schildmann, J., Molewijk, B., Benaroyo, L., Forde, R., Neitzke, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-17T00:00:49-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100697</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100697</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Health policy, Clinical ethics, Research and publication ethics, Health economics, Health service research, History of medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evaluation of clinical ethics support services and its normativity]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100502v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Aiming at a moving target: research ethics in the context of evolving standards of care and prevention]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100502v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In rapidly evolving medical fields where the standard of care or prevention changes frequently, guidelines are increasingly likely to conflict with what participants receive in research. Although guidelines typically set the standard of care, there are some cases in which research can justifiably deviate from guidelines. When guidelines conflict with research, an ethical issue only arises if guidelines are rigorous and should be followed. Next, it is important that the cumulative evidence and the conclusions reached by the guidelines do not eliminate the need for further research. Even when guidelines are rigorous and the study still asks an important question, we argue that there may be good reasons for deviations in three cases: (1) when research poses no greater net risk than the standard of care; (2) when there is a continued need for additional evidence, for example, when subpopulations are not covered by the guidelines; and (3) less frequently, when clinical practice guidelines can be justified by the evidence, but practitioners disagree about the guidelines, and the guidelines are not consistently followed as a result. We suggest that procedural protections may be especially useful in deciding when studies in the third category can proceed.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shah, S., Lie, R. K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-15T00:01:33-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100502</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100502</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[HIV/AIDS, Sexual health, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Aiming at a moving target: research ethics in the context of evolving standards of care and prevention]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-15</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100809v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Framing patient consent for student involvement in pelvic examination: a dual model of autonomy]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100809v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Patient consent has been formulated in terms of radical individualism rather than shared benefits. Medical education relies on the provision of patient consent to provide medical students with the training and experience to become competent doctors. Pelvic examination represents an extreme case in which patients may legitimately seek to avoid contact with inexperienced medical students particularly where these are male. However, using this extreme case, this paper will examine practices of framing and obtaining consent as perceived by medical students. This paper reports findings of an exploratory qualitative study of medical students and junior doctors. Participants described a number of barriers to obtaining informed consent. These related to misunderstandings concerning student roles and experiences and insufficient information on the nature of the examination. Participants reported perceptions of the negative framing of decisions on consent by nursing staff where the student was male. Potentially coercive practices of framing of the decision by senior doctors were also reported. Participants outlined strategies they adopted to circumvent patients&rsquo; reasons for refusal. Practices of framing the information used by students, nurses and senior doctors to enable patients to decide about consent are discussed in the context of good ethical practice. In the absence of a clear ethical model, coercion appears likely. We argue for an expanded model of autonomy in which the potential tension between respecting patients&rsquo; autonomy and ensuring the societal benefit of well-trained doctors is recognised. Practical recommendations are made concerning information provision and clear delineations of student and patient roles and expectations.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Carson-Stevens, A., Davies, M. M., Jones, R., Pawan Chik, A. D., Robbe, I. J., Fiander, A. N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-15T00:01:33-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100809</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100809</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[General practice / family medicine, Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine, Undergraduate, Education, medical]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Framing patient consent for student involvement in pelvic examination: a dual model of autonomy]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-15</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101207v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Trust but verify]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101207v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>I agree with Dr Eyal that the &lsquo;trust-promotion argument for informed consent&rsquo; fails to account for common sense intuitions about informed consent.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Appealing to &lsquo;social trust, especially trust in caretakers and medical institutions&rsquo; cannot, by itself, justify informed consent requirements. And stipulating, in the trust-promoting argument's first clause, that such trust is necessary is an invitation to abuse, in healthcare systems as much as in political systems. Those who are asked to give their informed consent to medical procedures have every reason for healthy scepticism, given the well-documented inadequacies of existing healthcare systems. &lsquo;Trust but verify&rsquo;&mdash;the Russian folk saying that President Ronald Reagan invoked in negotiating with Soviet leaders&mdash;has relevance in a great many circumstances, not least for individuals before agreeing to undergo medical procedures or to participate in clinical studies.</p><p>While it is in no way necessary for these individuals to trust health professionals, much less medical...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bok, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-11T00:01:08-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101207</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101207</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Trust but verify]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-11</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100774v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Moral responsibility for (un)healthy behaviour]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100774v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Combatting chronic, lifestyle-related disease has become a healthcare priority in the developed world. The role personal responsibility should play in healthcare provision has growing pertinence given the growing significance of individual lifestyle choices for health. Media reporting focussing on the &lsquo;bad behaviour&rsquo; of individuals suffering lifestyle-related disease, and policies aimed at encouraging &lsquo;responsibilisation&rsquo; in healthcare highlight the importance of understanding the scope of responsibility ascriptions in this context. Research into the social determinants of health and psychological mechanisms of health behaviour could undermine some commonly held and tacit assumptions about the moral responsibility of agents for the sorts of lifestyles they adopt. I use Philip Petit's conception of freedom as &lsquo;fitness to be held responsible&rsquo; to consider the significance of some of this evidence for assessing the moral responsibility of agents. I propose that, in some cases, factors outside the agent's control may influence behaviour in such a way as to undermine her freedom along the three dimensions described by Pettit: freedom of action; a sense of identification with one's actions; and whether one's social position renders one vulnerable to pressure from more powerful others.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brown, R. C. H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-11T00:01:08-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100774</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100774</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Smoking and tobacco, Open access, Sexual health, Health education, Smoking]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Moral responsibility for (un)healthy behaviour]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-11</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Public health ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101206v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Utilitarianism and informed consent]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101206v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Being targeted by Nir Eyal's ingenious argument,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond. It is fairly obvious that my utilitarian argument accomplishes what it is supposed to accomplish, namely a defence of the idea that the notion of informed consent should take roughly the form it takes in Western medicine. But does it fly in the face of commonsense moral thinking? I will argue that it does not.</p><p>My argument is based on hedonistic utilitarianism.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> This means that it is an <I>instance</I> of the general pattern of argumentation that Eyal presents. It takes slightly different forms in its defence of the place of informed content in research and in the clinic. For reasons of space I will focus exclusively on the clinic.</p><p>The thrust of the argument is as follows. In many cases, we should allow people to refuse treatment for the simple reason that...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tannsjo, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-08T23:51:25-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101206</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101206</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Utilitarianism and informed consent]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-08</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100947v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Medical confidentiality and the competent patient]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100947v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Confidentiality is both a fundamental principle of medical ethics and a legal obligation.</p><p>In exceptional situations not covered by legal provisions, doctors may want to waive confidentiality against the wishes of the patient. Swiss law calls for an authority to rule on such cases. In the Canton of Geneva this authority is the Commission for Professional Confidentiality. This paper concerns 41 cases managed by this commission.</p><p>The study shows that the majority of these requests to the Commission concern the reporting of patients who are not incompetent but need the protection of a legal guardianship. In rare cases, there is another interest higher than confidentiality: public order or functioning of justice. The Commission found that the measure requested was justified in the majority of cases brought before it.</p><p>This study focuses on exceptional cases but it throws into relief the conflict between the principle of autonomy on the one hand and the need for patient protection and social justice on the other.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niveau, G., Burkhardt, S., Chiesa, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-07T23:50:54-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100947</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100947</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Child health, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine, Human rights]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Medical confidentiality and the competent patient]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-07</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101172v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Embryo loss and double effect]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101172v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I defend the argument that if embryo loss in stem cell research is morally problematic, then embryo loss in <I>in vivo</I> conception is similarly morally problematic. According to a recent challenge to this argument, we can distinguish between <I>in vivo</I> embryo loss and the <I>in vitro</I> embryo loss of stem cell research by appealing to the doctrine of double effect. I argue that this challenge fails to show that <I>in vivo</I> embryo loss is a mere unintended side effect while <I>in vitro</I> embryo loss is an intended means and that, even if we refine the challenge by appealing to Michael Bratman's three roles of intention, the distinction is still unwarranted.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Di Nucci, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-03T23:55:47-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101172</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101172</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics, Health education]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Embryo loss and double effect]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-03</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Reproductive ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101132v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Reply to Hidalgo's 'The active recruitment of health workers: a defence' article]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101132v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>Hidalgo offers a novel and interesting defence of the active recruitment of health workers by organisations based in the developed world.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> His conclusions are highly controversial and run directly counter to those drawn by a large number of bioethicists, empirical researchers and national and international organisations interested in the issue of health worker migration.</p><p>The debate about the effects of the migration of healthcare professionals began in earnest in the 1970s. During this decade a number of researchers argued that migration flows from the developing to the developed world were detrimental to poorer countries and suggested that policies ought to be put in place to both retard the flow of migration and compensate countries for the negative effects of any ongoing migration.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> However, some researchers have recently argued that the migration of healthcare workers has many positive effects.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R3">3</cross-ref> This is because migration encourages human...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hooper, C. R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-02T23:56:08-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101132</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101132</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Reply to Hidalgo's 'The active recruitment of health workers: a defence' article]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100882v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Burdens of ANH outweigh benefits in the minimally conscious state]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100882v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In the case of the minimally conscious patient M, the English Court of Protection ruled that it would be unlawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) from her. The Court reasoned that the sanctity of life was the determining factor and that it would not be in M's best interests for ANH to be withdrawn. This paper argues that the Court's reasoning is flawed and that continued ANH was not in this patient's best interests and thus should have been withdrawn.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Glannon, W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-02T23:56:08-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100882</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100882</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Burdens of ANH outweigh benefits in the minimally conscious state]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-01-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100658v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What are the attitudes of strictly-orthodox Jews to clinical trials: are they influenced by Jewish teachings?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100658v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In order to explore whether and how Jewish teachings influence the attitudes of strictly-orthodox Jews to clinical trials, 10 strictly-orthodox Jews were purposively selected and interviewed, using a semi-structured schedule. Relevant literature was searched for similar studies and for publications covering relevant Jewish teachings. Thematic analysis was used to analyse transcribed interviews and explore relationships between attitudes and Jewish teachings identified in the review. Participants&rsquo; attitudes were influenced in a variety of ways: by Jewish teachings on the over-riding importance of preserving life&mdash;the need to avoid risks affecting life and health, while taking risks to preserve life&mdash;and the religious obligation to help others, as well as by previous experience. Attitudes mirrored those in the general population, enabling many participants to reach conclusions that did not differ materially from those of the general population or research ethics committees.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Box Bayes, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-25T00:00:51-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100658</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100658</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What are the attitudes of strictly-orthodox Jews to clinical trials: are they influenced by Jewish teachings?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100369v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A plea for end-of-life discussions with patients suffering from Huntington's disease: the role of the physician]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100369v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) by request and/or based on an advance directive are legal in The Netherlands under strict conditions, thus providing options for patients with Huntington's disease (HD) and other neurodegenerative diseases to stay in control and choose their end of life. HD is an inherited progressive disease characterised by chorea and hypokinesia, psychiatric symptoms and dementia. From a qualitative study based on interviews with 15 physicians experienced in treating HD, several ethical issues emerged. Consideration of these aspects leads to a discussion about the professional role of a physician in relation to the personal autonomy of a patient. Such a discussion can raise awareness that talking about end-of-life wishes with an HD patient is part of the legal, professional and moral responsibility of the physician, and that a letter of intent on behalf of the physician can improve active participation in the process. Discussion of these issues can help to advance the debate on euthanasia and PAS in HD and other neurodegenerative diseases.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Booij, S. J., Engberts, D. P., Rodig, V., Tibben, A., Roos, R. A. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-22T00:00:51-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100369</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100369</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), End of life decisions (palliative care), Suicide (psychiatry), Assisted dying, End of life decisions (ethics), Research and publication ethics, Psychology and medicine, Suicide (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A plea for end-of-life discussions with patients suffering from Huntington's disease: the role of the physician]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-22</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101013v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Learning the law: practical proposals for UK medical education]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101013v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Ongoing serious breaches in medical professionalism can only be avoided if UK doctors rethink their approach to law. UK medical education has a role in creating a climate of change by re-examining how law is taught to medical students. Adopting a more insightful approach in the UK to the impact of The Human Rights Act and learning to manipulate legal concepts, such as conflict of interest, need to be taught to medical students now if UK doctors are to manage complex decision-making in the NHS of the future. The literature is reviewed from a unique personal perspective of a doctor and lawyer, and practical proposals for developing medical education in law in the UK are suggested.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Margetts, J. K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-21T00:01:35-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101013</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101013</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Learning the law: practical proposals for UK medical education]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-21</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Teaching and learning ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100769v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[How can bedside rationing be justified despite coexisting inefficiency? The need for 'benchmarks of efficiency']]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100769v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Imperfect efficiency in healthcare delivery is sometimes given as a justification for refusing to ration or even discuss how to pursue fair rationing. This paper aims to clarify the relationship between inefficiency and rationing, and the conditions under which bedside rationing can be justified despite coexisting inefficiency. This paper first clarifies several assumptions that underlie the classification of a clinical practice as being inefficient. We then suggest that rationing is difficult to justify in circumstances where the rationing agent is or should be aware of and contributes to clinical inefficiency. We further explain the different ethical implications of this suggestion for rationing decisions made by clinicians. We argue that rationing is more legitimate when sufficient efforts are undertaken to decrease inefficiency in parallel with efforts to pursue unavoidable but fair rationing. While the qualifier &lsquo;sufficient&rsquo; is crucial here, we explain why &lsquo;sufficient efforts&rsquo; should be translated into &lsquo;benchmarks of efficiency&rsquo; that address specific healthcare activities where clinical inefficiency can be decreased. Referring to recent consensus papers, we consider some examples of specific clinical situations where improving clinical inefficiency has been recommended and consider how benchmarks for efficiency might apply. These benchmarks should state explicitly how much inefficiency shall be reduced in a reasonable time range and why these efforts are &lsquo;sufficient&rsquo;. Possible strategies for adherence to benchmarks are offered to address the possibility of non-compliance.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Strech, D., Danis, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-20T00:00:54-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100769</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100769</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[How can bedside rationing be justified despite coexisting inefficiency? The need for 'benchmarks of efficiency']]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-20</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101045v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The potential benefit of the placebo effect in sham-controlled trials: implications for risk-benefit assessments and informed consent]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101045v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There has been considerable debate surrounding the ethics of sham-controlled trials of procedures and interventions. Critics argue that these trials are unethical because participants assigned to the control group have no prospect of benefit from the trial, yet they are exposed to all the risks of the sham intervention. However, the placebo effect associated with sham procedures can often be substantial and has been well documented in the scientific literature. We argue that, in light of the scientific evidence supporting the benefits of sham interventions for pain and Parkinson's disease that stem from the placebo effect, these sham-controlled trials should be considered as offering potential direct benefit to participants. If scientific evidence demonstrates the positive effect of placebo from sham interventions on other conditions, sham-controlled trials of interventions for the treatment of these conditions should be considered to have prospects of benefit as well. This potential benefit should be taken into account by research ethics committees in risk-benefit analyses, and be included in informed consent documents.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brim, R. L., Miller, F. G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-13T00:00:59-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101045</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101045</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Clinical trials (epidemiology), Open access, Complementary medicine, Other anaesthesia, Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The potential benefit of the placebo effect in sham-controlled trials: implications for risk-benefit assessments and informed consent]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-13</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101074v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[How not to argue against mandatory ethics review]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101074v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There is considerable controversy about the mandatory ethics review of research. This paper engages with the arguments offered by Murray Dyck and Gary Allen against mandatory review, namely, that this regulation fails to reach the standards that research ethics committees apply to research since it is harmful to the ethics of researchers, has little positive evidence base, leads to significant harms (through delaying valuable research) and distorts the nature of research. As these are commonplace arguments offered by researchers against regulation it is useful to assess their strength and the conclusion that they are taken to support, namely, that we ought to move back to a system of trust in researchers without compulsory regulation. Unfortunately, these arguments are at best weak and to some degree come into conflict in terms of supporting the desired conclusion.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hunter, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-12T00:01:54-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101074</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101074</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[How not to argue against mandatory ethics review]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-12</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100916v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The weight attributed to patient values in determining best interests]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100916v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In <I>W</I> <I>v</I> <I>M</I> and Others (<I>Re M</I>) the Court of Protection considered whether withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration was in the best interests of a person in minimally conscious state. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 states that in determining best interests the decision-maker must consider, so far as is reasonably ascertainable, the patient's wishes, feelings, beliefs and values. Baker J. indicated that a high level of specificity is required in order to attribute significant weight to these factors. It is preservation of life which carries substantial weight in the best interests' balance sheet. Could the (prior) values of a patient ever meet the probative standard necessary to offset the weight accorded to preservation of life? Rather than referencing the patient's values to specific circumstances and treatments they could be more effectively considered as part of the patient narrative, how the patient would want her life story to continue/cease.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Johnston, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-12T00:01:54-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100916</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100916</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The weight attributed to patient values in determining best interests]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-12</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100488v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[New trends of short-term humanitarian medical volunteerism: professional and ethical considerations]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100488v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Short-term humanitarian medical volunteerism has grown significantly among both clinicians and trainees over the past several years. Increasingly, both volunteers and their respective institutions have faced important challenges in regard to medical ethics and professional codes that should not be overlooked. We explore these potential concerns and their risk factors in three categories: ethical responsibilities in patient care, professional responsibility to communities and populations, and institutional responsibilities towards trainees. We discuss factors increasing the risk of harm to patients and communities, including inadequate preparation, the use of advanced technology and the translation of Western medicine, issues with clinical epidemiology and test utility, difficulties with the principles of justice and clinical justice, the lack of population-based medicine, sociopolitical effects of foreign aid, volunteer stress management, and need for sufficient trainee supervision. We review existing resources and offer suggestions for future skill-based training, organisational responsibilities, and ethical preparation.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Asgary, R., Junck, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-12T00:01:54-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100488</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100488</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Patients]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[New trends of short-term humanitarian medical volunteerism: professional and ethical considerations]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-12</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Global medical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100490v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Using informed consent to save trust]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100490v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Increasingly, bioethicists defend informed consent as a safeguard for trust in caretakers and medical institutions. This paper discusses an &lsquo;ideal type&rsquo; of that move. What I call the <I>trust-promotion argument for informed consent</I> states:</p><p>1.&nbsp;Social trust, especially trust in caretakers and medical institutions, is necessary so that, for example, people seek medical advice, comply with it, and participate in medical research.</p><p>2.&nbsp;Therefore, it is usually wrong to jeopardise that trust.</p><p>3.&nbsp;Coercion, deception, manipulation and other violations of standard informed consent requirements seriously jeopardise that trust.</p><p>4.&nbsp;Thus, standard informed consent requirements are justified.</p><p>This article describes the initial promise of this argument, then identifies challenges to it. As I show, the value of trust fails to account for some commonsense intuitions about informed consent. We should revise the argument, commonsense morality, or both.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eyal, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-08T00:01:00-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100490</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100490</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Informed consent, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Using informed consent to save trust]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-08</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100679v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Payment of research participants: current practice and policies of Irish research ethics committees]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100679v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Background</st><p>Payment of research participants helps to increase recruitment for research studies, but can pose ethical dilemmas. Research ethics committees (RECs) have a centrally important role in guiding this practice, but standardisation of the ethical approval process in Ireland is lacking.</p></sec><sec><st>Aim</st><p>Our aim was to examine REC policies, experiences and concerns with respect to the payment of participants in research projects in Ireland.</p></sec><sec><st>Method</st><p>Postal survey of all RECs in Ireland.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>Response rate was 62.5% (n=50). 80% of RECs reported not to have any established policy on the payment of research subjects while 20% had refused ethics approval to studies because the investigators proposed to pay research participants. The most commonly cited concerns were the potential for inducement and undermining of voluntary consent.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>There is considerable variability among RECs on the payment of research participants and a lack of clear consensus guidelines on the subject. The development of standardised guidelines on the payment of research subjects may enhance recruitment of research participants.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roche, E., King, R., Mohan, H. M., Gavin, B., McNicholas, F.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-12-01T00:00:51-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100679</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100679</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Payment of research participants: current practice and policies of Irish research ethics committees]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief report</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101136v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Is active recruitment of health workers really not guilty of enabling harm or facilitating wrongdoing?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101136v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>Hidalgo<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> argues that, contrary to widespread belief, active recruitment of health workers &lsquo;generally refrains from enabling harm or facilitating wrongdoing&rsquo;. In this commentary, I argue that the case is not yet convincing. There are a number of problems with the argument, only some of which I can sketch here. These include:<l type="ord"><li><p>Hidalgo gives an insufficient account of the relevant harms that are inflicted when healthcare workers emigrate. Relatedly, he does not take account of the underlying causes of migration and what might assist in remedying the situation. He thus fails to catalogue a wide range of losses that are born when health workers emigrate from developing countries and fails to appreciate how his recommendations undermine some of the constructive initiatives that might assist poor, developing countries.</p></li><li><p>Hidalgo misrepresents the situation in developing countries, incorrectly describing government funding of tertiary education as some kind of gift, rather than an...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brock, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-23T00:00:59-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101136</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101136</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Is active recruitment of health workers really not guilty of enabling harm or facilitating wrongdoing?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-23</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100907v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Best interests and the sanctity of life after W v M]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100907v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The case of <I>W v M and Others</I>, in which the court rejected an application to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a woman in a minimally conscious state, raises a number of profoundly important medico-legal issues. This article questions whether the requirement to respect the autonomy of incompetent patients, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, is being unjustifiably disregarded in order to prioritise the sanctity of life. When patients have made informal statements of wishes and views, which clearly&mdash;if not precisely&mdash;apply to their present situation, judges should not feel free to usurp such expressions of autonomy unless there are compelling reasons for so doing.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mullock, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-21T00:01:10-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100907</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100907</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Best interests and the sanctity of life after W v M]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-21</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100832v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Phase 1 oncology trials and informed consent]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100832v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Ethical concerns have been raised about the quality of informed consent by participants in phase 1 oncology trials. Interview surveys indicate that substantial proportions of trial participants do not understand the purpose of these trials&mdash;evaluating toxicity and dosing for subsequent efficacy studies&mdash;and overestimate the prospect of therapeutic benefit that they offer. In this article we argue that although these data suggest the desirability of enhancing the process of information disclosure and assessment of comprehension of the implications of study participation, they do not necessarily invalidate consent by phase 1 trial participants.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Miller, F. G., Joffe, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-17T00:00:48-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100832</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100832</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Oncology, Clinical trials (epidemiology), Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Phase 1 oncology trials and informed consent]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101134v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Recruiting medics from the poorest nations? It could be worse...]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101134v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><p>Hidalgo's paper is a clear and powerful contribution to a topic of ongoing concern.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> It should be taken seriously by anyone who worries that there is something seriously wrong with the flow of medical expertise from the poor countries of the South to the rich countries of the North because it forces open the question of just what that wrongness is supposed to be. (I count myself among these worriers, but it is not obvious on examination exactly where the problem lies. The parenthetical question mark in the title of my own modest contribution to the debate<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> was intended to indicate my uncertainty about whether I had pinned down the wrongness or would have to admit its absence; the more I wrote, the more I felt like an explorer who sets out to find the source of the Nile only to end up doubting the...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brassington, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-17T00:00:47-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101134</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101134</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Recruiting medics from the poorest nations? It could be worse...]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100978v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What's wrong with enhancements?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100978v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec id="s1"><st>Introduction</st><p>As I read Paula Casal's excellent paper, &lsquo;Sexual Dimorphism and Human Enhancement,&rsquo;<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> three thoughts kept circulating through my mind. First, I found myself largely in agreement with virtually everything she wrote. In particular, if Casal was being accurate and fair in writing that &lsquo;Robert Sparrow alleges that those who...advocate biomedical welfare enhancements are <I>committed</I> to selecting only female embryos because women live longer than men,&rsquo;<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> then she has given compelling reasons for believing that that claim is, on reflection, as ludicrous as it first sounds! In fact, I can think of many additional reasons to those which Casal forcefully adduced for rejecting the view in question, but I do not see the need to present them here, given the abundance of sufficiently compelling reasons Casal already presented.</p><p>Second, I confess that as I read Casal's article a strong feeling of shame washed over me in virtue...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Temkin, L. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-09T00:01:40-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100978</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100978</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What's wrong with enhancements?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-09</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101065v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Embryo deaths in reproduction and embryo research: a reply to Murphy's double effect argument]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101065v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The majority of embryos created in natural reproduction die spontaneously within a few weeks of conception. Some have argued that, therefore, if one believes the embryo is a person (in the normative sense) one should find &lsquo;natural&rsquo; reproduction morally problematic. An extension of this argument holds that, if one accepts embryo deaths in natural reproduction, consistency requires that one also accepts embryo deaths that occur in (i) assisted reproduction via in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and (ii) embryo research. In a recent paper in this journal, Timothy Murphy criticises both the initial argument and its extension. Murphy argues that double-effect reasoning can justify embryo deaths both in natural reproduction and IVF, but not in embryo research. Thus, according to Murphy, one can, without being inconsistent, (1) believe the embryo is a person and accept natural reproduction and IVF, and (2) accept natural reproduction and IVF, while rejecting embryo research on the ground that it involves embryo deaths. I show that Murphy's argument is problematic because double effect cannot justify embryo deaths in standard IVF practices. The problem is that the proportionality criterion of double effect is not met by such practices. Thus, Murphy's argument fails to support (1) and (2). An implication of his argument failing to support (2) is that it does not defeat the position I have defended in the past&mdash;that if one accepts standard IVF practices one should also accept embryo research, including research with embryos created solely for that purpose.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Devolder, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-08T00:01:41-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101065</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101065</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Ethics of abortion, Ethics of reproduction, Sex and sexuality]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Embryo deaths in reproduction and embryo research: a reply to Murphy's double effect argument]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-08</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101024v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Moral concerns with sedation at the end of life]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101024v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>Two studies reported in the <I>Journal of Medical Ethics</I> add to the growing body of qualitative evidence relating to the use of sedatives at the end of life.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> Respondents in the two studies affirm a number of important concerns, most of which have been elaborated in the philosophy and palliative care literature, relating to the use of sedation. There seems little doubt that the common moral thread to most of these concerns is the possibility that end-of-life sedation can resemble assisted death.</p><p>Most of the Dutch respondents in the paper by Reitjens <I>et al</I><cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> were reported to believe that sedation does not hasten death. That is an oversimplification. Were it not for the potential to hasten death, I doubt we would be discussing the use of sedatives so frequently in ethics journals. It is true that there is little evidence that sedation significantly hastens...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Douglas, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-07T00:01:15-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101024</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101024</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Moral concerns with sedation at the end of life]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-07</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100981v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The minimally conscious state and treatment withdrawal: W v M]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100981v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This short comment on the Court of Protection decision in W v M draws attention to the primacy the judge gave to the preservation of life and discusses the relative lack of weight accorded to M's previously expressed views.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jackson, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-05T00:01:33-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100981</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100981</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[General practice / family medicine, Psychology and medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The minimally conscious state and treatment withdrawal: W v M]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-05</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101083v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Organ markets and harms: a reply to Dworkin, Radcliffe Richards and Walsh]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101083v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In my recent article in the <I>Journal of Medical Ethics</I>, I attacked the Laissez Choisir (LC) Argument in defence of letting individuals choose whether to sell kidneys or other organs as living donors, and I argued that such transactions should generally remain prohibited.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> The LC Argument arises as a response to a prohibitionist claim that I endorse: organ sales should be banned to protect potential poverty-stricken vendors, even if a free market could provide great benefits to potential organ recipients. The LC Argument says that this is misplaced paternalism, since banning the market only takes away from willing vendors what they must regard as their best option, thereby (allegedly) leaving them even worse off, at least as they see things. My refutation of the LC Argument pointed out, on the contrary, that giving some people the option to sell their organs may harm them in ways they would...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rippon, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-05T00:01:32-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101083</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101083</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Organ markets and harms: a reply to Dworkin, Radcliffe Richards and Walsh]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-11-05</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100943v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Getting the justification for research ethics review right]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100943v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Dyck and Allen claim that the current model for mandatory ethical review of research involving human participants is unethical once the harms that accrue from the review process are identified. However, the assumptions upon which the authors assert that this model of research ethics governance is justified are false. In this commentary, I aim to correct these assumptions, and provide the right justificatory account of the requirement for research ethics review. This account clarifies why the subsequent arguments that Dyck and Allen make in the paper lack force, and why the &lsquo;governance problem&rsquo; in research ethics that they allude to ought to be explained differently.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dunn, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-10-31T00:02:02-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100943</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100943</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Getting the justification for research ethics review right]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-10-31</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100927v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The active recruitment of health workers: a defence]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100927v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Many organisations in rich countries actively recruit health workers from poor countries. Critics object to this recruitment on the grounds that it has harmful consequences and that it encourages health workers to violate obligations to their compatriots. Against these critics, I argue that the active recruitment of health workers from low-income countries is morally permissible. The available evidence suggests that the emigration of health workers does not in general have harmful effects on health outcomes. In addition, health workers can immigrate to rich countries and also satisfy their obligations to their compatriots. It is consequently unjustified to blame or sanction organisations that actively recruit health workers.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hidalgo, J. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-10-30T00:01:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100927</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100927</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The active recruitment of health workers: a defence]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-10-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100645v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Commentary by Janet Radcliffe-Richards on Simon Rippon's 'Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market']]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100645v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>This is an excellent article, probably the best there is in defence of prohibiting the sale of organs, and it deserves a much fuller discussion of detail than there is space for here.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> My concerns, however, are with generalities rather than detail. Although some such argument might justify prohibition of organ selling in particular places and at particular times, it is difficult to see how it could support the kind of general, universal policy currently accepted by most advocates of prohibition.</p><p>Whenever the subject of organ selling is discussed, it is useful to keep in mind the natural history of the debate. Prohibition was instituted by most governments and professional bodies just about as quickly as possible after it was discovered that payment for kidneys was going on, and was a direct response to feelings of moral outrage. It all happened without time for debate. It was only later,...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Radcliffe-Richards, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-10-19T00:01:51-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100645</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100645</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Commentary by Janet Radcliffe-Richards on Simon Rippon's 'Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market']]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-10-19</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101028v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA['In a twilight world'? Judging the value of life for the minimally conscious patient]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101028v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The recent ruling from England on the case of M is one of very few worldwide to consider whether life-sustaining treatment, in the form of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, should continue to be provided to a patient in a minimally conscious state. Formally concerned with the English law pertaining to precedent autonomy (specifically advance decision-making) and the best interests of the incapacitated patient, the judgment issued in M's case implicitly engages with three different accounts of the value of human life, which respectively emphasise its self-determined, intrinsic and instrumental value. The judge appeared to be most persuaded by the intrinsic value of life and he concluded that treatment ought to continue. Assessing whether his approach or conclusion were ethically appropriate involves significant substantive and evidential questions regarding where the burden of proof should lie and what standard of proof should be required when decisions are to be made about the fates of patients inhabiting &lsquo;twilight worlds&rsquo;.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Huxtable, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-10-12T00:00:58-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101028</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101028</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Psychology and medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA['In a twilight world'? Judging the value of life for the minimally conscious patient]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-10-12</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100788v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The argument for property rights in body parts: scarcity of resources]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100788v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article attempts to answer two basic questions. First, can body parts be the subject of property rights? This requires us to start with a definition of property rights, and this is set out in the first section. In the second section, it will be argued that rights in relation to body parts can come within this definition of property rights. However, as explained in the third section, the fact that body parts can be the subject of property rights does not mean that they should. To answer the question of whether body parts should be the subject of property rights we need to consider policy arguments. This article will develop an argument in favour of the recognition of property rights in body parts which focuses on the notion of scarcity of resources.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Douglas, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-10-06T00:00:59-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100788</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100788</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The argument for property rights in body parts: scarcity of resources]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-10-06</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101016v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Response to the commentaries of Melissa S Anderson and Murray J Dyck]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-101016v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Anderson and Dyck claim that the current trend of almost exclusively using citation-based evaluative metrics to assess the research output of scholars is unsound. I agree with them in this, but I feel that, for practical reasons, this system will not disappear in the near future, so we must concentrate on making it fairer.</p><p>Both commentators doubt whether numerically expressing each contributor's relative contribution is feasible. I admit that an important precondition for this task is the possibility of an informed, democratic debate among equals about the relative contribution of each contributor to the article. Mechanisms should be established to protect vulnerable researchers in the academic field in the same way as safeguards exist today to protect vulnerable research participants.</p><p>Theoretically, however, I think that the fair allocation of authorship credit is possible, and much of this task is already being performed routinely when contributors determine the order of their names in the byline, being well aware of the widespread assumption that this order mostly mirrors the order of their relative contributions. All they would have to do as an additional task is to express this order in numbers. If they cannot reach a consensus, they could always choose not to express their relative contribution in numbers, in which case the presumption would be that they contributed equally. My proposal could, at best, make the system fairer and, at worst, not reduce the options that evaluators already have.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kovacs, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-10-04T00:02:46-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-101016</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-101016</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Response to the commentaries of Melissa S Anderson and Murray J Dyck]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-10-04</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100983v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The contested realm of displaying dead bodies]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100983v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>The Viewpoint article expressed the feelings of unease often encountered at the display of human corpses in museums, whether relating to prehistoric or recent times. The reasons frequently stem from what is seen as a lack of respect for the remains of another human being. In this instance, the underlying concerns are that the corpses are displayed naked, along with lack of consent from anyone with an interest in them. While these are legitimate queries, ethical interests extend further afield to include whether the corpses are identifiable, are prehistoric or recent, and the existence of living descendants. Additional interests include the uses to which corpses are put, namely, research, teaching and/or public displays.</p><p>In recent years, it has become commonplace to hear of human remains that had been held for many years by universities or museums being repatriated to indigenous people groups in America, Australia and New Zealand for subsequent reburial.<cross-ref...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jones, D. G., Whitaker, M. I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-10-04T00:02:45-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100983</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100983</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The contested realm of displaying dead bodies]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-10-04</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100942v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Rolling back the bureaucracies of ethics review]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100942v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Dyck and Allen's criticisms of current systems of governance are well founded, at least in some jurisdictions. Their desire to halt the expansion and intensification of research ethics governance is to be applauded. However, their listed categories of research to be exempted from mandatory review may not create a better system.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Israel, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-10-02T00:01:05-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100942</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100942</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Bioethics, Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Rolling back the bureaucracies of ethics review]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-10-02</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100856v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Withdrawing artificial nutrition and patients' interests]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100856v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I argue that the arguments brought by Counsel for M to the English Court of Protection are morally problematic in prioritising subjective interests that are the result of &lsquo;consistent autonomous thought&rsquo; over subjective interests that are the result of a more limited cognitive perspective.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Di Nucci, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-25T00:01:32-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100856</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100856</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Withdrawing artificial nutrition and patients' interests]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Viewpoint and current controversy</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100770v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A legal market in organs: the problem of exploitation]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100770v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The article considers the objection to a commercial market in living donor organs for transplantation on the ground that such a market would be exploitative of the vendors. It examines a key challenge to that objection, to the effect that denying poor people the option to sell an organ is to withhold from them the best that a bad situation has to offer. The article casts serious doubt on this attempt at justifying an organ market, and its philosophical underpinning. Drawing, in part, from the catalogued consequences of a thriving kidney market in some parts of India, it is argued that the justification relies on conditions which are extremely unlikely to obtain, even in a regulated donor market: that organ selling meaningfully improves the material situation of the organ vendor. Far from being axiomatic, both logic and the extant empirical evidence point towards the unlikelihood of such an upshot. Finally, the article considers a few conventional counter-arguments in favour of a permissive stance on organ sales.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greasley, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-21T00:00:52-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100770</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100770</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Suicide (psychiatry), Artificial and donated transplantation, Suicide (public health)]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A legal market in organs: the problem of exploitation]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-21</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Political philosophy and medical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100940v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Commentary on 'Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multiauthor article.']]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100940v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Kovacs calls for collaborating teams to indicate the proportional credit that each author of a multi-authored paper deserves.<sup>1</sup> This approach addresses the problem of giving each of the co-authors full (and therefore inflated) credit for the article when their publication records are assessed. This problem is, however, a weakness in the evaluation system, not in the publication system, and it will not be solved by the proposed strategy.</p><p>As the author notes, publication records are critical to decisions on hiring, promotion, tenure, salaries and allocation of research resources. At each of these points, what matters most is the quality of the candidate's work, which cannot be adequately assessed by quick counts of articles, even when the counts are weighted by numbers of citations or impact factors. Some institutions and departments perform careful reviews; others don't. Committees that review many grant proposals routinely and resignedly rely on inadequate proxy measures such as...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anderson, M. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-19T00:00:57-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100940</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100940</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Commentary on 'Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multiauthor article.']]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-19</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100568v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100568v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The current use of citation-based metrics to evaluate the research output of individual researchers is highly discriminatory because they are uniformly applied to authors of single-author articles as well as contributors of multi-author papers. In the latter case, these quantitative measures are counted, as if each contributor were the single author of the full article. In this way, each and every contributor is assigned the full impact-factor score and all the citations that the article has received. This has a multiplication effect on each contributor's citation-based evaluative metrics of multi-author articles, because the more contributors an article has, the more undeserved credit is assigned to each of them. In this paper, I argue that this unfair system could be made fairer by requesting the contributors of multi-author articles to describe the nature of their contribution, and to assign a numerical value to their degree of relative contribution. In this way, we could create a contribution-specific index of each contributor for each citation metric. This would be a strong disincentive against honorary authorship and publication cartels, because it would transform the current win-win strategy of accepting honorary authors in the byline into a zero-sum game for each contributor.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kovacs, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-15T00:00:58-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100568</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100568</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-15</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100561v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Approaches to suffering at the end of life: the use of sedation in the USA and Netherlands]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100561v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><st>Background</st><p>Studies describing physicians&rsquo; experiences with sedation at the end of life are indispensible for informed palliative care practice, but they are scarce. We describe the accounts of physicians from the USA and the Netherlands, two countries with different regulations on end-of-life decisions regarding their use of sedation.</p></sec><sec><st>Methods</st><p>Qualitative face-to-face interviews were held in 2007&ndash;2008 with 36 physicians (18 from the Netherlands, 18 from the USA), including primary care physicians and specialists. We applied purposive sampling and conducted constant comparative analyses.</p></sec><sec><st>Results</st><p>In both countries, the use of sedation was described in diverse terms, especially in the USA, and was often experienced as emotionally challenging. Respondents stated different and sometimes multiple intentions for their use of sedation. Besides alleviating severe suffering, most Dutch respondents justified its use by stating that it does not hasten death, while most American respondents indicated that it might hasten death but that this was justifiable as long as that was not their primary intention. While many Dutch respondents indicated that they initiated open discussions about sedation proactively to inform patients about their options and to allow planning, the accounts of American respondents showed fewer and less-open discussions, mostly late in the dying process and with the patient's relatives.</p></sec><sec><st>Conclusions</st><p>The justification for sedation and the openness with which it is discussed were found to differ in the accounts of respondents from the USA and the Netherlands. Further clarification of practices and research into the effect and effectiveness of the use of sedation is recommended to enhance informed reflection and policy making.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rietjens, J. A., Voorhees, J. R., van der Heide, A., Drickamer, M. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-14T00:01:19-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100561</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100561</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[General practice / family medicine, End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), Long term care, End of life decisions (palliative care), Hospice, End of life decisions (ethics), Psychology and medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Approaches to suffering at the end of life: the use of sedation in the USA and Netherlands]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-14</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Current controversy</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100422v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Sexual dimorphism and human enhancement]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100422v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Robert Sparrow argues that because of women's longer life expectancy philosophers who advocate the genetic modification of human beings to <I>enhance welfare</I> rather than merely <I>supply therapy</I> are committed to favouring the selection of only female embryos, an implication he deems sufficiently implausible to discredit their position. If Sparrow's argument succeeds, then philosophers who advocate biomedical <I>moral enhancement</I> also seem vulnerable to a similar charge because of men's greater propensity for various forms of harmful wrongdoing. This paper argues there are various flaws in Sparrow's argument that render it unsuccessful. The paper also examines whether dimorphism reduction is a more desirable outcome than male elimination, thereby further illustrating the difficulties besetting the distinction between therapy and enhancement.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Casal, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-08T02:01:07-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100422</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100422</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Sexual dimorphism and human enhancement]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-08</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100939v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Misused honorary authorship is no excuse for quantifying the unquantifiable]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100939v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Kovacs argues that honorary authorship and regarding each co-author of multi-authored papers as if they were sole authors when the performance of researchers is being evaluated by their publications mean that we should require authors to identify what proportion of each publication should be attributed to each co-author. Even if such attributions could be made reliably, such a change should not be made. Contributions to authorship cannot be validly quantified, and the relative merits of different publications are also neither equal nor validly quantifiable. Research administrators need to recognise that whatever criteria they adopt to evaluate the performance of researchers, researchers will find a way to game the system in order to maximise their personal benefit.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dyck, M. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-06T02:01:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100939</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100939</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Misused honorary authorship is no excuse for quantifying the unquantifiable]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-06</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100826v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Human dignity and rights beyond death]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100826v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>The corpse of a high-ranking male official was unearthed in the 1975, and important archaeologic discoveries were claimed. The exact year of his funeral was 167 BC. Autopsy revealed that the man had peptic ulcer disease. His naked body exposing genitalia and post-dissection stitches, with the dissected-out intestines and brain lying alongside, is now exhibited in a formalin-impregnated viewing glass tank in a museum (<cross-ref type="fig" refid="MEDETHICS2012100826F1">figure 1</cross-ref>).</p><p>Meanwhile a 2000-year-old clothed female corpse is on display in another museum. In 1971, workers in China digging an air-raid shelter near the city of Changsha uncovered an enormous Han Dynasty-era tomb containing &lsquo;the most perfectly preserved corpse ever found&rsquo;. The tomb belonged to the wife of the Marquis of Han who died between 178 and 145 BC at around 50&nbsp;years of age (<A HREF="http://listverse.com/2009/12/24/top-10-famous-mummified-bodies/">http://listverse.com/2009/12/24/top-10-famous-mummified-bodies/</A>). When autopsied, remains of her last meal were found in her stomach, and type A blood still...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hon, K. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-06T02:01:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100826</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100826</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Competing interests (ethics), Undergraduate]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Human dignity and rights beyond death]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-06</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Viewpoint and current controversy</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100649v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Comment on 'Is Prostitution Harmful?']]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100649v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There are few participants in academic or policy debates over prostitution who would disagree that steps should be taken to improve conditions for those working in prostitution; so Moen<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> is in good and plentiful company with respect to his recommendations.</p><p>I will focus here on the analysis leading up to his conclusions, and with whether it helps us understand why prostitution is so commonly harmful and what it would take to mitigate those harms.<sup><cross-ref type="fn" refid="fn1">i</cross-ref></sup> On these matters I am dubious. The question of whether or not prostitution is harmful would seem, manifestly, to be an empirical question, rather than a philosophical issue. I take it that Moen's aim is to clarify the evaluative task, and then to evaluate the arguments that can be made to show prostitution is harmful&mdash;tasks which philosophers can responsibly engage in. But I would suggest that Moen's approach to this particular subject oversimplifies...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anderson, S. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-01T02:02:26-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100649</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100649</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Comment on 'Is Prostitution Harmful?']]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100954v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Is it better to be minimally conscious than vegetative?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100954v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In the case of Re M, summarised in the paper by Julian Sheather, Justice Baker faced the difficult task of weighing up objectively whether or not it was in M&rsquo;s best interests to withdraw artificial feeding and to let her die.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> The judge concluded that M was "recognisably alive", and that the advantages of continued life outweighed the disadvantages. He compared her minimally conscious state (MCS) favourably to that of a persistent vegetative state (PVS).<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> It was clear that artificial feeding would have been withdrawn if she had been in a PVS (her family and physicians had thought for some time that she was in this condition), but because she was in fact minimally conscious, the judge decided that treatment must continue. But does it make sense to treat MCS differently from PVS in this way? Is it better to be minimally conscious than unconscious? Similar...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wilkinson, D., Savulescu, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-01T02:02:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100954</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100954</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Is it better to be minimally conscious than vegetative?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100833v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Intrinsic versus contingent claims about the harmfulness of prostitution]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100833v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Moen targets a view about the intrinsic harmfulness of prostitution that he sees as widespread in healthcare, academia and public policy.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> He argues that the exchange of sex for money is not intrinsically harmful by systematically rejecting various possible proposed harms. He further suggests that it is the social context of discriminating laws and stigma that accounts for the harms experienced by prostitutes, rather than any intrinsic feature of exchanging sex for money.</p><p>One striking aspect of his argument is the particular way in which he characterises the common view about the harmfulness of prostitution. Consider the following two possible versions of the claim that prostitution is harmful:<qd><p>The intrinsic claim: The exchange of sex for money is intrinsically harmful to the seller.</p></qd><qd><p>The contingent claim: Prostitutes are currently likely to experience significant harm.</p></qd></p><p>The intrinsic claim is a conceptual one about an inherent link between selling sex and being harmed; this...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McDougall, R. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-09-01T02:02:25-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100833</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100833</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Intrinsic versus contingent claims about the harmfulness of prostitution]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100682v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[If you ask the wrong question, you'll get the wrong answer]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100682v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There are two main and several subsidiary difficulties with this paper.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="b1">1</cross-ref></p><p>The first main problem is that the authors, in calling for a revolution in the way that withdrawal of treatment cases are dealt with, fail to recognise that their desired revolutionary utopia is the ordinary workaday world of the law courts.</p><p>The English law in relation to the administration of treatment to children, and the withdrawal of treatment from them, is straightforward: the only lawful treatment is that which is in the child's best interests. The Children Act 1989 (Section 1(1)(a)) puts it slightly differently, but synonymously: the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. Yes, the views of those holding parental responsibility are sought, but those views do not determine where the child's best interests lie. This is often misunderstood. One hears people talk about a parental veto on proposed treatment or a withdrawal of treatment. There...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Foster, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-25T02:02:11-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100682</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100682</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Press releases]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[If you ask the wrong question, you'll get the wrong answer]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100676v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Religious red herrings]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100676v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Brierley <I>et al</I> take big polarised political debates deep into the context of paediatric intensive care. They are concerned that &lsquo;deeply held belief in religion leads to children being potentially subjected to burdensome care&rsquo;. However, it can be argued that they make a mistake in categorising this as a problem derived from religion, religious belief or the depth of religious conviction. Religion here is a red herring.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheehan, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-25T02:02:11-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100676</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100676</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Press releases, Adult intensive care, Paediatric intensive care]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Religious red herrings]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100683v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Just dying: the futility of futility]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100683v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I argue that Brierley <I>et al</I> are wrong to claim that parents who request futile treatment are acting against the interests of their child. A better ethical ground for withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment is not that it is in the interests of the patient to die, but rather on grounds of the limitation of resources and the requirements of distributive justice. Put simply, not all treatment that might be in a person's interests must ethically be provided.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Savulescu, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-25T02:02:10-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100683</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100683</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Press releases]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Just dying: the futility of futility]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100677v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[When they believe in miracles]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100677v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Brierley <I>et al</I> argue that in cases where it is medically futile to continue providing life-sustaining therapies to children in intensive care, medical professionals should be allowed to withdraw such therapies, even when the parents of these children believe that there is a chance of a miracle cure taking place. In reasoning this way, Brierley <I>et al</I> appear to implicitly assume that miracle cures will never take place, but they do not justify this assumption and it would be very difficult for them to do so. Instead of seeking to override the wishes of parents, who are waiting for a miracle, it is suggested that a better response may be to seek to engage devout parents on their own terms, and encourage them to think about whether or not continuing life-sustaining therapies will make it more likely that a miracle cure will occur.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Clarke, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-25T02:02:10-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100677</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100677</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Press releases]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[When they believe in miracles]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100104v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Should religious beliefs be allowed to stonewall a secular approach to withdrawing and withholding treatment in children?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100104v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Religion is an important element of end-of-life care on the paediatric intensive care unit with religious belief providing support for many families and for some staff. However, religious claims used by families to challenge cessation of aggressive therapies considered futile and burdensome by a wide range of medical and lay people can cause considerable problems and be very difficult to resolve. While it is vital to support families in such difficult times, we are increasingly concerned that deeply held belief in religion can lead to children being potentially subjected to burdensome care in expectation of &lsquo;miraculous&rsquo; intervention. We reviewed cases involving end-of-life decisions over a 3-year period. In 186 of 203 cases in which withdrawal or limitation of invasive therapy was recommended, agreement was achieved. However, in the 17 remaining cases extended discussions with medical teams and local support mechanisms did not lead to resolution. Of these cases, 11 (65%) involved explicit religious claims that intensive care should not be stopped due to expectation of divine intervention and complete cure together with conviction that overly pessimistic medical predictions were wrong. The distribution of the religions included Protestant, Muslim, Jewish and Roman Catholic groups. Five of the 11 cases were resolved after meeting religious community leaders; one child had intensive care withdrawn following a High Court order, and in the remaining five, all Christian, no resolution was possible due to expressed expectations that a &lsquo;miracle&rsquo; would happen.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brierley, J., Linthicum, J., Petros, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-25T02:02:10-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100104</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100104</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Cardiovascular medicine, Clinical ethics, Press releases, End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), End of life decisions (palliative care), Adult intensive care, End of life decisions (ethics), Legal and forensic medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Should religious beliefs be allowed to stonewall a secular approach to withdrawing and withholding treatment in children?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-25</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100534v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Double-effect reasoning and the conception of human embryos]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100534v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>Some commentators argue that conception signals the onset of human personhood and that moral responsibilities toward zygotic or embryonic persons begin at this point, not the least of which is to protect them from exposure to death. Critics of the conception threshold of personhood ask how it can be morally consistent to object to the embryo loss that occurs in fertility medicine and research but not object to the significant embryo loss that occurs through conception in vivo. Using that apparent inconsistency as a starting point, they argue that if that embryo loss is tolerable as a way of conceiving children, it should be tolerable in fertility medicine and human embryonic research. Double-effect reasoning shows, by contrast, that conception in vivo is justified even if it involves the death of persons because the motives for wanting children are not inherently objectionable, because the embryo loss that occurs in unassisted conception is not the means by which successful conception occurs, and because the effect of having children is proportionate to the loss involved. A similar outcome holds true for in vitro fertilisation in fertility medicine but not for in vitro fertilisation for research involving human embryos.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Murphy, T. F.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-18T02:01:17-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100534</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100534</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Education, medical]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Double-effect reasoning and the conception of human embryos]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-18</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Reproductive ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100571v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Factors that facilitate or constrain the use of continuous sedation at the end of life by physicians and nurses in Belgium: results from a focus group study]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100571v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>Continuous sedation at the end of life (CS) is the practice whereby a physician uses sedatives to reduce or take away a patient's consciousness until death. Although the incidence of CS is rising, as of yet little research has been conducted on how the administration of CS is experienced by medical practitioners. Existing research shows that many differences exist between medical practitioners regarding how and how often they perform CS. We conducted a focus group study to find out which factors may facilitate or constrain the use of continuous sedation by physicians and nurses. The participants often had clear ideas on what could affect the likelihood that sedation would be used. The physicians and nurses in the focus groups testified that the use of continuous sedation was facilitated in cases where a patient has a very limited life expectancy, suffers intensely, makes an explicit request and has family members who can cope with the stress that accompanies sedation. However, this &lsquo;paradigm case&rsquo; was considered to occur only rarely. Furthermore, deviations from the paradigm case were said to be sometimes due to physicians initiating the discussion on CS too late or not initiating it at all for fear of inducing the patient. Deviations from the paradigm case may also occur when sedation proves to be too difficult for family members who are said to sometimes pressure the medical practitioners to increase dosages and speed up the sedation.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Raus, K., Anquinet, L., Rietjens, J., Deliens, L., Mortier, F., Sterckx, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-14T02:01:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100571</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100571</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), Nursing, End of life decisions (palliative care), Hospice, End of life decisions (ethics), Psychology and medicine, Occupational and environmental medicine]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Factors that facilitate or constrain the use of continuous sedation at the end of life by physicians and nurses in Belgium: results from a focus group study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-14</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100763v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Dignity and the use of body parts]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100763v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>This paper contends that the conventional ethical and legal ways of analysing the wrong involved in the misuse of human body parts are inadequate, and should be replaced with an analysis based on human dignity. It examines the various ways in which dignity has been understood, outlines many of the criticisms made of those ways (agreeing with many of the criticisms), and proposes a new way of seeing dignity which is exegetically consonant with the way in which dignity has been historically understood, and yet avoids the pitfalls which have led to dignity being dismissed by many as hopelessly amorphous or incurably theological. The account of dignity proposed is broadly Aristotelian. It defines dignity in terms of human thriving, and presupposes that it is possible, at least in principle, to determine empirically what makes humans thrive. It contends that humans are quintessentially relational animals, and that it is not possible (and certainly not ethically desirable) to define humans as atomistic entities. One important corollary of this is that when using dignity/thriving as a criterion for determining the ethical acceptability of a proposed action or inaction, one should ask not merely how the dignity interests of the patient (for instance) would be affected, but how the dignity interests of all stakeholders would be affected. The business of ethics is then the business of auditing all those interests, and determining the course of action which would maximise the amount of thriving in the world.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Foster, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-14T02:01:24-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100763</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100763</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Dignity and the use of body parts]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-14</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100274v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100274v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>Review boards responsible for vetting the ethical conduct of research have been criticised for their costliness, unreliability and inappropriate standards when evaluating some non-medical research, but the basic value of mandatory ethical review has not been questioned. When the standards that review boards use to evaluate research proposals are applied to review board practices, it is clear that review boards do not respect researchers or each other, lack merit and integrity, are not just and are not beneficent. The few benefits of mandatory ethical review come at a much greater, but mainly hidden, social cost. It is time that responsibility for the ethical conduct of research is clearly transferred to researchers, except possibly in that small proportion of cases where prospective research participants may be so intrinsically vulnerable that their well-being may need to be overseen.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dyck, M., Allen, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-08-03T02:02:08-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100274</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100274</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Prison medicine, Sexual health, Research and publication ethics, Human rights]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-08-03</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100761v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Intellectual property rights and detached human body parts]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100761v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<sec><p>This paper responds to an invitation by the editors to consider whether the intellectual property (IP) regime suggests an appropriate model for protecting interests in detached human body parts. It begins by outlining the extent of existing IP protection for body parts in Europe, and the relevant strengths and weaknesses of the patent system in that regard. It then considers two further species of IP right of less obvious relevance. The first are the statutory rights of ownership conferred by domestic UK law in respect of employee inventions, and the second are the economic and moral rights recognised by European and international law in respect of authorial works. In the argument made, both of these species of IP right may suggest more appropriate models of sui generis protection for detached human body parts than patent rights because of their capacity better to accommodate the relevant public and private interests in respect of the same.</p></sec>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pila, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-07-26T02:01:28-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100761</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100761</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Research and publication ethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Intellectual property rights and detached human body parts]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-07-26</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100646v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Commentary on Simon Rippon, 'imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market']]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100646v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In debates over the legitimacy of markets for live human organs, much hinges on the moral standing of desperate exchanges. Can people in desperate circumstances genuinely choose to sell their organs? Alternatively if they do choose to sell, then surely is it their choice? While sales are banned in most of the Western world due to fears that the poor will be exploited, advocates of these markets find such prohibition unconscionably paternalistic; and from the standpoint of contemporary liberal theory, paternalism is anathema. Is it possible to provide grounds for blocking such desperate exchanges which are not at the same time paternalistic?</p><p>In &lsquo;Imposing Options on People in Poverty: the Harm of a Live Donor Organ Market', Simon Rippon argues that some options in the market do in fact harm. According to Rippon, if we focus on possible negative consequences of increasing an agent's options, one can develop an argument against...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walsh, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-06-30T02:00:58-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100646</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100646</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Commentary on Simon Rippon, 'imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market']]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-06-30</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100318v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100318v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A prominent defence of a market in organs from living donors says that if we truly care about people in poverty, we should allow them to sell their organs. The argument is that if poor vendors would have voluntarily decided to sell their organs in a free market, then prohibiting them from selling makes them even worse off, at least from their own perspective, and that it would be unconscionably paternalistic to substitute our judgements for individuals' own judgements about what would be best for them. The author shows that this &lsquo;<I>Laissez-Choisir</I> Argument&rsquo; for organ selling rests on a mistake. This is because the claim that it would be better for people in poverty to sell their organs <I>if given the option</I> is consistent with the claim that it would be even better for them to not have the option at all. The upshot is that objections to an organ market need not be at all paternalistic, since we need not accept that the absence of a market makes those in poverty any worse off, even from their own point of view. The author goes on to argue that there are strong theoretical and empirical reasons for believing that people in poverty would in fact be harmed by the introduction of a market for live donor organs and that the harm constitutes sufficient grounds for prohibiting a market.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rippon, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-06-28T02:01:17-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100318</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100318</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Smoking and tobacco, Sports and exercise medicine, Artificial and donated transplantation, Health education, Smoking]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-06-28</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100647v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Organ sales and paternalism]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100647v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Simon Rippon believes that a certain argument is not sound.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="b1">1</cross-ref> I agree. I do not agree with the role he assigns the argument in the debate about organ sales. Nor do I agree with the much stronger argument he puts forward that organ sales should be forbidden.</p><p>The argument he believes unsound, which I shall use his terminology to refer to as the Laissez-Choisir or LC argument, has three premises. The one be believes false says, "If we take away what some regard as their best option, we thereby make them worse off, at least from their own perspective".</p><p>Applied to the case of a market for organs, this says that if we take away what the potential organ seller regards as his best option, that is, there being a market for his organs, we make him worse off as judged by him. The reason Rippon thinks this argument is...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dworkin, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-06-19T02:00:57-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100647</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100647</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Organ sales and paternalism]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-06-19</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100662v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100662v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In 2011 the English Court of Protection ruled that it would be unlawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a woman, M, who had been in a minimally conscious state for 8&nbsp;years. It was reported as the first English legal case concerning withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a minimally conscious state who was otherwise stable. In the absence of a valid and applicable advance decision refusing treatment, of other life-limiting pathology or excessively burdensome suffering, the judgement makes it clear that the obligation on health professionals falls strongly in favour of preserving life. Although the Court sought to limit the judgement as closely as possible to the facts of the case, it is likely to have a significant impact on life-sustaining treatment decisions for people in states of low awareness. This paper outlines the main legal features of the judgement.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheather, J. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-05-17T02:00:48-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100662</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100662</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100663v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100663v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The recent judgement in the case of Re:M in which the Court held that it would be unlawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a woman in a minimally conscious state raises a number of ethical issues of wide application. Central to these is the extent to which precedent autonomous decisions should be respected in the absence of a legally binding advance decision. Well-being interests can survive the loss of many of the psychological faculties that support personhood. A decision to respect precedent autonomy can contradict the well-being interests of the individual after capacity is lost. These decisions raise difficult questions about personal identity and about the threshold of evidence that is required of an earlier decision in order for it to be respected.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheather, J. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-05-17T02:00:48-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100663</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100663</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-17</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100079v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Rationality, religion and refusal of treatment in an ambulance revisited]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100079v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In their recent article, Erbay <I>et al</I> considered whether a seriously injured patient should be able to refuse treatment if the refusal was based on a (mis)interpretation of religious doctrine. They argued that in such a case &lsquo;what is important...is whether the teaching or philosophy used as a reference point has been in fact correctly perceived&rsquo; (p 653). If it has not been, they asserted that this eroded the patient's capacity to make an autonomous decision and that therefore, in such cases, it is the role of the healthcare professional (HCP) to &lsquo;assist patients to think more clearly and rationally&rsquo; (p 653). There are, however, a number of problems with the reasons <I>why</I> Erbay <I>et al</I> suggest we should help patients to rationalise their decisions and <I>how</I> HCPs should go about this. In this article, the author explores some of their main arguments regarding consent and rationality (particularly in relation to religious beliefs), as well as Erbay <I>et al</I>'s normative claim that HCPs have an obligation to promote autonomy by helping patients to come to a &lsquo;rational&rsquo; decision. Ultimately, the author agrees that the (temporary) solution to the dilemma presented in this scenario (which was to insert an intravenous cannula into the patient in order to allow an infusion of fluids in the event that he changed his mind) seemed both pragmatic and ethically permissible. However, it is suggested that the arguments which underpin this conclusion in Erbay <I>et al</I>'s article are largely unsound.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McMahon-Parkes, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-05-16T02:00:56-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100079</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100079</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Emergency medicine, Bioethics]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Rationality, religion and refusal of treatment in an ambulance revisited]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-16</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100426v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Forced to be Right]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100426v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In "Forced to be Free", Neil Levy surveys the raft of documented decision-making biases that humans are heir to, and advances several bold proposals designed to enhance the patient's judgment. Gratefully, Levy is moved by the psychological research on judgment and decision-making that documents people's inaccuracy when identifying courses of action will best promote their subjective well-being. But Levy is quick to favour the patient's present preferences, to ensure they get "final say" about their treatment. I urge the opposite inclination, raising doubts about whether the patient's "present preferences" are the best expression of their "final say". When there is adequate evidence that people, by their own lights, overemphasize their present preferences about the future, we should carefully depreciate those preferences, in effect biasing them to make the right decision by their own lights.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trout, J. D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-03-13T02:02:12-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100426</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100426</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Forced to be Right]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-03-13</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100492v1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Why autonomy needs help]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2012-100492v1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Some argue that to be effective in healthcare settings autonomy needs to be strengthened. The author thinks autonomy is fundamentally inadequate in healthcare settings and requires supplementation by experience-based paternalism on the part of doctors and healthcare providers.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caplan, A. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-02-15T02:01:33-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2012-100492</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2012-100492</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Why autonomy needs help]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-02-15</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Commentary</prism:section>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100207v2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Forced to be free? Increasing patient autonomy by constraining it]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/medethics-2011-100207v2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>It is universally accepted in bioethics that doctors and other medical professionals have an obligation to procure the informed consent of their patients. Informed consent is required because patients have the moral right to autonomy in furthering the pursuit of their most important goals. In the present work, it is argued that evidence from psychology shows that human beings are subject to a number of biases and limitations as reasoners, which can be expected to lower the quality of their decisions and which therefore make it more difficult for them to pursue their most important goals by giving informed consent. It is further argued that patient autonomy is best promoted by constraining the informed consent procedure. By limiting the degree of freedom patients have to choose, the good that informed consent is supposed to protect can be promoted.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Levy, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-02-10T02:02:37-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100207</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:medethics;medethics-2011-100207</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Open access, Sexual health, Bioethics, Informed consent, Research and publication ethics, Legal and forensic medicine, Human rights]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Forced to be free? Increasing patient autonomy by constraining it]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-02-10</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Feature article</prism:section>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>