scholarly journals The case for biotechnological exceptionalism

Author(s):  
Jan-Hendrik Heinrichs

AbstractDo biomedical interventions raise special moral concerns? A rising number of prominent authors claim that at least in the case of biomedical enhancement they do not. Treating biomedical enhancements different from non-biomedical ones, they claim, amounts to unjustified biomedical exceptionalism. This article vindicates the familiar thesis that biomedical enhancement raises specific concerns. Taking a close look at the argumentative strategy against biomedical exceptionalism and provides counterexamples showing that the biomedical mode of interventions raises concerns not relevant otherwise. In particular, biomedical interventions throughout raise concerns of informed consent, which only rarely turn up in comparable non-biomedical interventions.

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 546-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell J. Mehlman ◽  
Jessica W. Berg

There are two critical steps in determining whether a medical experiment involving human subjects can be conducted in an ethical manner: assessing risks and potential benefits and obtaining potential subjects’ informed consent. Although an extensive literature on both of these aspects exists, virtually nothing has been written about human experimentation for which the objective is not to prevent, cure, or mitigate a disease or condition, but to enhance human capabilities. One exception is a 2004 article by Rebecca Dresser on preimplantation genetic modification — one of the most controversial enhancement technologies — in which she states, “Under existing research ethics principles, it would be unethical for investigators to perform modifications exposing embryos expected to develop into healthy children to significant risk in exchange for a possible physical or mental enhancement.” But Dresser does not explain why such an experiment would be unethical under existing principles, and her conclusion is not self-evident.


2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-8
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, explains that independent medical evaluations (IMEs) are not the same as impairment evaluations, and the evaluation must be designed to provide the data to answer the questions asked by the requesting client. This article continues discussions from the September/October issue of The Guides Newsletter and examines what occurs after the examinee arrives in the physician's office. First are orientation and obtaining informed consent, and the examinee must understand that there is no patient–physician relationship and the physician will not provide treatment bur rather will send a report to the client who requested the IME. Many physicians ask the examinee to complete a questionnaire and a series of pain inventories before the interview. Typical elements of a complete history are shown in a table. An equally detailed physical examination follows a meticulous history, and standardized forms for reporting these findings are useful. Pain and functional status inventories may supplement the evaluation, and the examining physician examines radiographic and diagnostic studies. The physician informs the interviewee when the evaluation is complete and, without discussing the findings, asks the examinee to complete a satisfaction survey and reviews the latter to identify and rectify any issues before the examinee leaves. A future article will discuss high-quality IME reports.


2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
ELIZABETH MECHCATIE
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Deborah Bowman ◽  
John Spicer ◽  
Rehana Iqbal
Keyword(s):  

Pflege ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Schopp ◽  
Theo Dassen ◽  
Maritta Välimäki ◽  
Helena Leino-Kilpi ◽  
Gerd Bansemir ◽  
...  

Ziel dieser Untersuchung war die Autonomie, Privatheit und die Umsetzung des Prinzips der «informierten Zustimmung» aus der Perspektive des institutionell zu betreuenden, älteren Menschen zu beschreiben. Die Untersuchung ist ein Teil des durch die EU-Kommission unterstützten BIOMED 2 Projektes «Patient’s autonomy and privacy in nursing interventions»1. Interviewdaten (n = 95) wurden in deutschen Kliniken der Geriatrie und Pflegeheimen gesammelt. Ergebnisse zeigten, dass die Teilnehmer in geringem Maß selbstbestimmte Entscheidungen treffen konnten. Das Prinzip der «informierten Zustimmung» wurde wenig umgesetzt. Ihre Privatheit sahen die Teilnehmer in Mehrbettzimmern sowie in Situationen des Ankleidens und bei der Verrichtung der Ausscheidungen nicht respektiert. Es ist anzunehmen, dass ältere Menschen wegen Informationsdefiziten, durch ihren Hilfsbedarf und durch die festgelegten Organisationsstrukturen der Pflegeeinrichtungen eine passive Krankenrolle übernehmen. Es wäre denkbar, dass die Autonomie der älteren Menschen gefördert werden könnte, wenn die Pflegekräfte sie in der Rolle des Fürsprechers bei selbstbestimmten Entscheidungen unterstützen würden. Bei den pflegerischen Interventionen würde die Umsetzung des Prinzips der «informierten Zustimmung» sowohl die Autonomie als auch die Respektierung der Privatheit fördern. Es ist außerdem anzunehmen, dass durch Flexibilisierung der Organisationsstrukturen der Pflegeeinrichtungen die Autonomie und Lebensqualität der älteren Menschen gefördert werden könnte.


1985 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 1062-1063 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Graca
Keyword(s):  

1990 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-39
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Golding

1979 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Michael Levy ◽  
Yvonne Brackbill
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document