Moral Conflicts of Organ Retrieval: A Case for Constructive Pluralism

Abstract Background In 2019, WHO classified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health. Vaccination is an area of excellence in nursing that has gained a new focus and has become a challenge in the provision of care and in the management field. Vaccine hesitation raises questions about mandatory vaccination, individual versus collective freedom that are highlighted in the current context due to the emergence of new vaccines. In this paper, we want to analyze and update knowledge about vaccines hesitancy from an ethical and bioethical perspective. Methods A combination of literature reviews on vaccine refusal/hesitancy, ethics and COVID-19 vaccine confidence, accessed on SciELO and PubMed databases and analysis of documents from General Directorate of Health and Ordem dos Enfermeiros (National Nurses Association). Results Vaccination programs aim is a collective protection. The desirable effects at individual level do not have the same ethical value at collective level, leading to cost-benefit imbalances. Moral conflicts between the individual and the collective, cost-benefit imbalances and the insufficiency of bioethics principles, lead us to the use of other moral values and principles, such as responsibility, solidarity and social justice, as a tool for ethical reflection problems related to COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions There are no perfect solutions to ethical dilemmas and some optimal solutions could depend the context. In a pandemic situation, one of the most relevant ethical issues is the herd immunity since it leaves public health at risk. Equity and the principle of justice in vaccination campaign are shown daily in the nursing profession.

Download Full-text

Successful Use of Kidneys from a Deceased Donor with Active Herpes Zoster Infection

Case Reports in Transplantation ◽

10.1155/2021/7719041 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-4

Author(s):

Amanda J. Vinson ◽

Prakash Chauhan ◽

Christopher Daley ◽

Himanthi De Silva ◽

Karthik K. Tennankore ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Herpes Zoster ◽

Deceased Donor ◽

Infectious Complications ◽

Varicella Zoster Virus Infection ◽

Herpes Zoster Infection ◽

Donor Pool ◽

Varicella Zoster ◽

Organ Retrieval ◽

Infectious Risk ◽

Kidney Recipients

Background. The limited donor pool and increasing recipient wait list require a reevaluation of kidney organ suitability for transplantation. Use of higher infectious risk organs that were previously discarded may help improve access to transplantation and reduce patient mortality without placing patients at a higher risk of poor posttransplant outcomes. There is very little data available regarding the safe use of kidney organs from deceased donors with varicella zoster virus infection at the time of organ retrieval. Case Presentation. Here, we report a case of successful transplantation of both kidneys from a deceased donor with active herpes zoster infection at the time of organ retrieval. Recipients were treated preemptively with acyclovir. At 4 months posttransplant, both kidney recipients experienced no infectious complications and were off dialysis with functioning transplant grafts. Conclusions. The use of kidney organs from donors with active herpes zoster infection appears to be a safe option to expand the kidney donor pool.

Download Full-text

Beyond good and bad: Varieties of moral judgment

10.31219/osf.io/wk53s ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

William Jimenez-Leal ◽

Samuel Murray ◽

Santiago Amaya ◽

Sergio Barbosa

Keyword(s):

Moral Judgment ◽

Moral Rights ◽

Character Traits ◽

Moral Conflicts ◽

Single Dimension ◽

The Common ◽

Qualitative Analyses

We argue that people regularly encounter situations characterized by the presence of moral conflicts among permissible options. These scenarios, which some have called morally charged situations, reflect perceived tensions between moral expectations and moral rights. Studying responses to such situations marks a departure from the common emphasis on sacrificial dilemmas and widespread use of single-dimension measures. In 6 experiments (n=1607), we show that people use a wide conceptual arsenal when assessing actions that can be described as suberogatory (bad but permissible) or supererogatory (good but not required). In Experiment 1 we find that people freely describe actions as suberogatory or supererogatory. Experiment 2 shows that they differentially assess these actions in terms of how permissible, optional, and good they considered them. Experiment 3 tests the use of these evaluative dimensions with sacrificial dilemmas. We found that differences between these categories did not emerge when people respond to dilemmas, even when controlling for trait utilitarian tendencies. By including judgments of blameworthiness and sanction, Experiments 4 and 5 provided additional evidence of the richness sub/super erogatory evaluations. In Experiment 6 people offered their own explanations of their responses. Qualitative analyses revealed that they frequently appeal to character traits, the presence of rights, and the absence of explicit duties. Taken together these results suggest a richer spectrum of both situations and concepts relevant to characterize moral judgment than moral psychologists up to this point have generally recognized. (First three authors contributed equally)

Download Full-text