Principles-based biomedical ethics has been a dominant paradigm for the teaching and practice of biomedical ethics for over three decades. Attractive in its conceptual and linguistic simplicity, it has also been criticized for its lack of moral content and justification and its lack of attention to relationships. This book identifies the modernist and postmodernist worldviews and philosophical roots of principlism that ground the moral minimalism of its common morality premise. Building on previous work by prominent Christian (...) bioethicists, an alternative covenantal ethical framework is presented in our contemporary context. Relationships constitute the core of medicine, and understanding the ethical meaning of those relationships is important in providing competent and empathic care. While the notion of covenant is articulated through the richness of meaning taught in the Christian Scriptures, covenantal commitment is also appreciated in Islamic, Jewish, and even pagan traditions as well. In a world of increasing medical knowledge and consequent complexity of care, such commitment can help to resist enticements toward the pursuit of self-interest. It can also improve relationships among caregivers, each of whose specific expertise must be woven into a matrix of care that constitutes optimal medical practice for each vulnerable and needy patient. (shrink)

In the past few years an increasing number of colleges and universities have added courses in biomedical ethics to their curricula. To some extent, these additions serve to satisfy student demands for "relevance. " But it is also true that such changes reflect a deepening desire on the part of the academic community to deal effectively with a host of problems which must be solved if we are to have a health-care delivery system which is efficient, humane, and (...) just. To a large degree, these problems are the unique result of both rapidly changing moral values and dramatic advances in biomedical technology. The past decade has witnessed sudden and conspicuous controversy over the morality and legality of new practices relating to abortion, therapy for the mentally ill, experimentation using human subjects, forms of genetic interven tion, suicide, and euthanasia. Malpractice suits abound and astronomical fees for malpractice insurance threaten the very possibility of medical and health-care practice. Without the backing of a clear moral consensus, the law is frequently forced into resolving these conflicts only to see the moral issues involved still hotly debated and the validity of existing law further questioned. In the case of abortion, for example, the laws have changed radically, and the widely pub licized recent conviction of Dr. Edelin in Boston has done little to foster a moral consensus or even render the exact status of the law beyond reasonable question. (shrink)

In Japan, modern biomedical ethics emerged in the early 1980s. One of the main triggers was the nationwide debate on organ transplantation and brain death. A lengthy process of academic, religious, and political discussion concerning organ transplantation, lasting well over a few decades, resulted in the enactment of the Organ Transplantation Law in 1997.1 The defining of death and other bioethical issues, including death with dignity and euthanasia, were also stimulating topics throughout the latter end of the twentieth (...) century. For instance, the death-with-dignity movement, which started around the late 1960s, developed into a hospice/palliative-care movement by the end of the 1980s. (shrink)

Biomedical research has a strong impact on a country’s scientific-technological and socioeconomic development. It can make a significant contribution at three different levels: promotion of public health; the exchange of knowledge within the scientific community; and economic/ financial profitability. Africa only attracts ~3.3% of the world’s clinical research. This small proportion is due to, among several factors, the absence of two fundamental aspects: specific robust legislation and capacity for regulatory and ethical evaluation. There are five Portuguese- speaking African countries (...) – Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and São Tomé and Príncipe. Despite presenting different degrees of clinical research development, these countries show a common serious insufficiency in the minimum conditions necessary for hosting, collaborating or leading biomedical research projects. These countries are also excluded from the support of international organisations for capacity building because of the language barrier. The Biomedical Ethics and Regulatory Capacity Building Partnership for Portuguese-Speaking African Countries project has developed methods to build capacity and partnership through research on national law, comparisons with international standards and by issuing recommendations at a national level. Through collaborative intensive training, trainees are taught to become educators at a national level. This, in turn, creates a sustainable impact at country level. BERC-Luso is a pioneering project, owing to a combination of innovative features. The partnership project: was developed exclusively in Portuguese; involves a large number of African countries, and national and international institutions; has been further enhanced by the diversity and complementarity of its action plans; and has also benefited from a broad participatory methodology based on resolution of recipients’ problems by the recipients themselves. It thus stands out as a model for similar future projects. (shrink)

Recent developments in biomedical research have the potential to radically transform modern medicine. The ethical dilemmas that these advances raise are discussed in the following chapters: Is Human Cloning Ethical? What Ethics Should Guide Organ Donations? Are Reproductive Technologies Ethical? What Ethics Should Guide Genetic Research?

This best-selling anthology of readings with case studies provides insightful and comprehensive treatment of ethical issues in medicine. Appropriate for courses taught in philosophy departments as well as in schools of medicine and nursing, the collection covers provocative topics such as conflicts of interest in medicine, advance directives, physician-assisted suicide, and the rationing of health care. The text's effective pedagogical features include chapter introductions, argument sketches, explanations of medical terms, headnotes, and annotated bibliographies.

Can genetic testing and manipulation be done ethically? -- Is the use of human embryos in stem cell research ethical? -- Chapter 3:is assisted reproductive technology ethical?

Topic Read 01. Jan 09 Introduction/Pretest/Critical Thinking 02. Jan 11 Ethical Theory Homepage 03. Jan 16 More about Ethical Theory 04. Jan 18 Euthanasia CC-2 05. Jan 23 More about Euthanasia CC-4 06. Jan 25 Birth Defects CC-9 07. Jan 30 Euthanasia/Birth Defects Symposium 08. Feb 01 Animals as Research Subjects CC-10 09. Feb 06 More about Animals as Research Subjects 10. Feb 08 Humans as Research Subjects CC-11 11. Feb 13 Organ/Tissue Donation & Xenografts CC-13/14 12. Feb 15 Research (...) Symposium 13. Feb 20 MID-TERM EXAM 14. Feb 22 Sexual Orientation/Discrimination 15. Feb 27 Human Sexuality/Sexual Ethics Homepage 16. Mar 01 Human Sexuality Symposium 17. Mar 06 Pharmaceuticals & Empiricism 18. Mar 08 Recreational Drugs 19. Mar 20 HIV/AIDS CC-17 20. Mar 22 Contraception 21. Mar 27 Drugs/AIDS Symposium 22. Mar 29 Abortion CC-5 23. Apr 03 More about Abortion 24. Apr 05 Abortion Symposium 25. Apr 10 Assisted Reproduction CC-6 26. Apr 12 Cloning and Stem Cell Research CC-7/8 27. Apr 17 Cloning and Stem Cell Research Symposium 28. Apr 19 LATE-TERM EXAM 29. Apr 24 Medicare/HMO CC-18 30. Apr 26 Medicare/HMO Symposium.. (shrink)

Public health ethics is a subfield of bioethics that focuses on population health. This study aims to conform the principles of biomedical ethics to Islamic values in the context of public health. It culturally helps to optimize health care delivery. The approach is based on the method of immanent critique. The principle of the common good in Islam has a rational justification to draw public interests and ward off harms. The rule of “no harm”, with an emphasis (...) on the preferability of preventing harm to increase benefits, is consistent with the principle of utility, intending to produce a maximum balance of benefit over harm in the context of public health. Thus, on the one hand, the government is obliged to prevent harm and improve public benefits and, on the other hand, as a steward of health and with reference to the article “limitation of the ownership dominance”, it has the right to protect public health with the least justifiable harm. Islam attention to human dignity, individual justice and good will in the rule of goodness implies that Islam, beyond distributive justice, knows that human flourishing and the cultivation of moral virtues are a requisite for the realization of social justice. The present study discusses about the adjustment of the principles of PHE to the principles of the Islamic jurisprudence and, at the same time, it explains why the optimal PH in Muslim societies requires research in order to define accurate indicators of benefit and harm based on the teachings of revelation and reason. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. By Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress.

In search of principles of health care in Islam -- Health and suffering -- Beginning of life -- Terminating early life -- Death and dying -- Organ donation and cosmetic enhancement -- Recent developments -- Epilogue.

Biomedical ethics in the FRG is still in an embryonic stage. The Hippocratic tradition of paternalism is still dominant, general debates on Weltanschauungen have not yet been replaced by case-study methods and other means of resolving conflicts more effectively in pluralistic societies. Issues such as IVF and embryo research are predominantly treated in legal rather than in moral terms. Some new developments in moral assessment of prenatal care and care of the dying are reported. Allocational disputes over the (...) future of welfare-state health care systems are likely to continue without any major moral or political decision being reached. (shrink)

This paper provides a perspective on where contemporary Muslim responses to biomedical-ethical issues stand to date. There are several ways in which Muslim responses to biomedical ethics can and have been studied in academia. The responses are commonly divided along denominational lines or under the schools of jurisprudence. All such efforts classify the responses along the lines of communities of interpretation rather than the methods of interpretation. This research is interested in the latter. Thus, our criterion for (...) classification is the underlying methodology behind the responses. The proposed classification divides Muslim biomedical-ethical reasoning into three methodological categories: 1) textual, 2) contextual, and 3) para-textual. (shrink)

In this essay, and in his honor, I focus on two of physician-philosopher H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.’s many contributions, namely, his view that biomedical ethics cannot offer a singular content-driven theoretical approach and requires an appreciation of epistemologies of knowing in medicine. While these two positions remain controversial, because we all want definitive answers to our questions concerning what we ought to do in medicine and elsewhere, Dr. Engelhardt’s view makes possible discussion and debate in medicine to include (...) diverse, defensible ways of knowing. In the end, Dr. Engelhardt’s approach in biomedical ethics is one of shared decision making and negotiation. This is an important model if we take respect for patients seriously in the clinical setting. (shrink)

In the seventh and most recent edition of their classic book, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Tom Beauchamp and James Childress define a virtue as a character trait that is “socially valuable and reliably present” and a moral virtue as such a trait that is also both “dispositional” and “morally valuable”. The virtues that they single out as “focal” within biomedical ethics are compassion, discernment, trustworthiness, integrity, and conscientiousness. Not all is well in their treatment of virtue. (...) Beauchamp and Childress seem to worry that an ethical theory in which virtues are fundamental will neglect duties, rights, and societal needs. Further, they insist that there is no reason to think that, within ethical theory, one family of ethical concepts is the most important, nor that one theoretical approach is correct, or even superior to others. I will try to show, that there are strong reasons to see language, concepts, and matters of virtue as fundamental within normative ethical theory, both generally and in such specialized subareas as medical ethics. These reasons reveal themselves when we analyze concepts at the core of the alternative approaches to theorizing ethics that Beauchamp and Childress identify. (shrink)

This best-selling anthology of readings with case studies provides insightful and comprehensive treatment of ethical issues in medicine. Appropriate for courses taught in philosophy departments, bioethics programs, as well as schools of medicine and nursing, the collection covers such provocative topics as biomedical enhancement, clinical trials in developing countries, animal research, physician-assisted suicide, and health care reform. The text's effective pedagogical features include chapter introductions, argument sketches, explanations of medical terms, headnotes, and annotated bibliographies.

This text attempts to set forth as accurate a picture as possible of the present state of biomedical ethics in Canada, along with recommendations as to how it can be improved. It also shows how far the goal of expanding the field of biomedical ethics is to provide major improvements in the quality of health care in Canada.

After briefly sketching common-morality principlism, as presented in Principles of Biomedical Ethics, this paper responds to two recent sets of challenges to this framework. The first challenge claims that medical ethics is autonomous and unique and thus not a form of, or justified or guided by, a common morality or by any external morality or moral theory. The second challenge denies that there is a common morality and insists that futile efforts to develop common-morality approaches to bioethics (...) limit diversity and prevent needed moral change. This paper argues that these two critiques fundamentally fail because they significantly misunderstand their target and because their proposed alternatives have major deficiencies and encounter insurmountable problems. (shrink)

Today, advances in medicine and biotechnology occur at a rapid pace and have a profound impact on our lives. Mechanical devices can sustain an injured person's life indefinitely. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the body and brain can reveal disorders before symptoms appear. Genetic testing of embryos can predict whether people will have diseases earlier or later in life. It may even become possible to clone human beings. These and other developments raise difficult ethical questions. (...) Biomedical Ethics is an engaging philosophical introduction to the most important ethical positions and arguments in six areas of biomedicine: the patient-doctor relationship, medical research on humans, reproductive rights and technologies, genetics, medical decisions at the end of life, and the allocation of scarce medical resources. Concisely capturing the historical, contemporary, and future-oriented aspects of the field, author Walter Glannon discusses both perennial issues in medicine, such as doctors' duties to patients, and recent and emerging issues in scientific innovation, including gene therapy and cloning. Ideal for undergraduate courses in contemporary moral problems, introduction to ethics, and introduction to bioethics, Biomedical Ethics is accessible to students who have little or no background in ethical theory, medicine, or biotechnology. (shrink)

In biomedical ethics, there is widespread acceptance of moral realism, the view that moral claims express a proposition and that at least some of these propositions are true. Biomedical ethics is also in the business of attributing moral obligations, such as “S should do X.” The problem, as we argue, is that against the background of moral realism, most of these attributions are erroneous or inaccurate. The typical obligation attribution issued by a biomedical ethicist fails (...) to truly capture the person's actual obligations. We offer a novel argument for rife error in obligation attribution. The argument starts with the idea of an epistemic burden. Epistemic burdens are all of those epistemic obstacles one must surmount in order to achieve some aim. Epistemic burdens shape decision-making such that given two otherwise equal options, a person will choose the option that has the lesser of epistemic burdens. Epistemic burdens determine one's potential obligations and, conversely, their non-obligations. The problem for biomedical ethics is that ethicists have little to no access to others' epistemic burdens. Given this lack of access and the fact that epistemic burdens determine potential obligations, biomedical ethicists often can only attribute accurate obligations out of luck. This suggests that the practice of attributing obligations in biomedical ethics is rife with error. To resolve this widespread error, we argue that this practice should be abolished from the discourse of biomedical ethics. (shrink)

This book offers a systematic analysis of the moral principles that should apply to biomedicine. We understand "biomedical ethics" as one type of applied ethics. In our discussions of ethical theory per se, we offer anaylses of levels of moral deliberation and justification and of the ways two major approaches interpret principles, rules, and judgments. The systematic core of the book presents four fundamental moral principles--autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.

By analyzing the amalgam of Greek philosophy, Jewish and Christian teachings, and secular humanism that composes our dominant ethical system, the authors of this volume explore the question of whether or not Western and non-Western moral values can be commingled without bilateral loss of cultural integrity. They take as their philosophical point of departure the observation that both ethical relativism and ethical absolutism have become morally indefensible in the context of the multicultural American life, and they variously consider the need (...) for an ethical middle ground. (shrink)

This work presents the diverse fields of expertize, various viewpoints, ideas and rich experiences in this field. This collection stresses on importance of the perception of Gift of Life in a Pluralistic Society .

This anthology of 42 readings begins with the author's thorough introduction to the history and theories of biomedical ethics. The readings that follow include the physician-patient relationship, reproductive rights, and technologies, genetics, as well as death and dying.

Case studies raise questions about patients' rights, advanced lifeprolonging measures, human subjects in medical research, and the allocation of health care resources.

Technology pertaining to genetically modified foods has created an abundance of food and various methods to protect new products and enhance productivity. However, many scientists, economists, and humanitarians have been critical of the application of these discoveries. They are apprehensive about a profit-driven mentality that, to them, seems to propel the innovators rather than a poverty-elimination mentality that should be behind such innovations. The objectives should be to afford the most benefit to those in need and to prevent hunger around (...) the world. Another major concern is the safety of genetically modified food. Muslims, as well as those in other religious communities, have been reactive rather than proactive. Muslims must connect scientific knowledge and ethical behavior based on faith. In Islam, there is no divide between the two. God has commanded us to seek knowledge and make discoveries to better our lives and our environment. We are trustees of this world and everything in it. The poor, the sick, and the wayfarers have a right to be fed and cared for. God reminds Muslims continuously that the earth and all the heavens belong to God; therefore, no one should feel hunger, no one should suffer or be prevented from sharing this bounty. (shrink)

The European Biomedical Ethics Practitioner Education Project (EBEPE), funded by the BIOMED programme of the European Commission, is a five-nation partnership to produce open learning materials for healthcare ethics education. Papers and case studies from a series of twelve conferences throughout the European Union, reflecting the ‘burning issues’ in the participants' healthcare systems, have been collected by a team based at Imperial College, London, where they are now being edited into a series of seven activity-based workbooks for (...) individual or group study. These draft workbooks are now being read by a network of critical readers across Europe, whose comments will be incorporated into the final versions of the workbooks. The result will be the first European-wide and Europe-centred resource for teaching students, practitioners, and members of ethics committees. Topics covered include: • Resource allocation and rationing • The rights of children and young people • Long-term care of the elderly • Mental health and mental illness • Autonomy and patient choice • Decisions at the end of life • A study guide to using the workbooks The collaborative nature of the project has highlighted differentiated national approaches in medical ethics. Against the British and Dutch rights-orientated approach have emerged two other alternative models: the Nordic preference for administrative resolution of entitlement disputes, and the southern European emphasis on deontological codes. A genuinely European reconstruction of autonomy and rights, using hermeneutic, feminist and narrative approaches to counterbalance individualistic models, is emerging across the workbooks. The programme has also uncovered national differences in how ethics should be taught, with the workbooks' style being an experiential approach. Thus the EBEPE project is developing new models in both substantive and pedagogic senses, about both what should be taught and how it should be presented. (shrink)