Using Biomedical Ethics Model to Explore Use of Postmortem Specimens in Tissue Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 234-237
Author(s):  
Stacy A. Drake ◽  
Erica T. Yu

Researchers often have a need to conduct human tissue research using postmortem specimens. Medicolegal death investigation organizations are untapped areas for obtaining postmortem human tissues. Because death investigation organizations are not required by law to conduct or support research, an ethical dilemma exists in whether or not researchers should use cadaver tissues for research purposes. This paper analyzes the ethical issues of using human tissues through discussion of principles of biomedical ethics, respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. Policy makers, organ and tissue procurement organizations, medicolegal death investigation organizations, and scientists should be aware of these principles when considering researchers requests. The authors conclude that with Institutional Review Board approval and next of kin consent, there are prevailing reasons for using postmortem tissue for research.

Author(s):  
David B. Resnik

This chapter provides an overview of the ethics of environmental health, and it introduces five chapters in the related section of The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics. A wide range of ethical issues arises in managing the relationship between human health and the environment, including regulation of toxic substances, air and water pollution, waste management, agriculture, the built environment, occupational health, energy production and use, environmental justice, population control, and climate change. The values at stake in environmental health ethics include those usually mentioned in ethical debates in biomedicine and public health, such as autonomy, social utility, and justice, as well as values that address environmental concerns, such as animal welfare, stewardship of biological resources, and sustainability. Environmental health ethics, therefore, stands at the crossroads of several disciplines, including public health ethics, environmental ethics, biomedical ethics, and business ethics.


Author(s):  
Tripat Gill

AbstractThe ethical dilemma (ED) of whether autonomous vehicles (AVs) should protect the passengers or pedestrians when harm is unavoidable has been widely researched and debated. Several behavioral scientists have sought public opinion on this issue, based on the premise that EDs are critical to resolve for AV adoption. However, many scholars and industry participants have downplayed the importance of these edge cases. Policy makers also advocate a focus on higher level ethical principles rather than on a specific solution to EDs. But conspicuously absent from this debate is the view of the consumers or potential adopters, who will be instrumental to the success of AVs. The current research investigated this issue both from a theoretical standpoint and through empirical research. The literature on innovation adoption and risk perception suggests that EDs will be heavily weighted by potential adopters of AVs. Two studies conducted with a broad sample of consumers verified this assertion. The results from these studies showed that people associated EDs with the highest risk and considered EDs as the most important issue to address as compared to the other technical, legal and ethical issues facing AVs. As such, EDs need to be addressed to ensure robustness in the design of AVs and to assure consumers of the safety of this promising technology. Some preliminary evidence is provided about interventions to resolve the social dilemma in EDs and about the ethical preferences of prospective early adopters of AVs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-194
Author(s):  
Serene Ong ◽  
Jeffrey Ling ◽  
Angela Ballantyne ◽  
Tamra Lysaght ◽  
Vicki Xafis

AbstractGovernments are investing in precision medicine (PM) with the aim of improving healthcare through the use of genomic analyses and data analytics to develop tailored treatment approaches for individual patients. The success of PM is contingent upon clear public communications that engender trust and secure the social licence to collect and share large population-wide data sets because specific consent for each data re-use is impractical. Variation in the terminology used by different programmes used to describe PM may hinder clear communication and threaten trust. Language is used to create common understanding and expectations regarding precision medicine between researchers, clinicians and the volunteers. There is a need to better understand public interpretations of PM-related terminology. This paper reports on a qualitative study involving 24 focus group participants in the multi-lingual context of Singapore. The study explored how Singaporeans interpret and understand the terms ‘precision medicine’ and ‘personalised medicine’, and which term they felt more aptly communicates the concept and goals of PM. Results suggest that participants were unable to readily link the terms with this area of medicine and initially displayed preferences for the more familiar term of ‘personalised’. The use of visual aids to convey key concepts resonated with participants, some of whom then indicated preferences for the term ‘precision’ as being a more accurate description of PM research. These aids helped to facilitate dialogue around the ethical and social value, as well as the risks, of PM. Implications for programme developers and policy makers are discussed.


2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 401-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda L. Nolen ◽  
Jim Vander Putten

Action research in education has gained increasing attention in the past 20 years. It is viewed as a practical yet systematic research method that enables teachers to investigate their own teaching and their students’ learning. However, the ethical issues unique to this form of insider research have received less attention. Drawing on several professional associations’ principles for research practice, the authors identify a series of potential ethical issues inherent in action research in K–12 schools and the corresponding difficulties that action researchers encounter with the policies and procedures of institutional review boards. The authors conclude with recommendations for future practice addressed to three groups: institutional review boards, K–12 school professionals and teacher educators, and national professional and representative organizations.


2021 ◽  
pp. 9-16
Author(s):  
Oleg Letov ◽  

The article is an analytical review of English-language articles on contemporary ethical issues related to the coronavirus epidemic. Such principles of biomedical ethics as respect for the freedom of the patient, non-harm are analyzed. A precautionary approach is formulated, the main norms of which are practicality, impartiality, proportionality and justification. It is emphasized that public health advice and action should be part of a broader effort to gain and maintain confidence in the action taken. Reasonable trust requires a serious attitude to the ethical problems associated with the implementation of the intended ethical principles.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reetika Khera

Questions of ethics in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in development economics need greater attention and a wider perspective. RCTs are meant to be governed by the three principles laid out in the Belmont Report, but often violated them, e.g. when local laws are flouted. In other cases, the framework of the Belmont Report itself has proved inadequate: for instance, when there are unintended outcomes or adverse events for which no-one is held accountable. Primarily using RCTs conducted in India, this paper highlights eight areas of concern. RCTs also have a disproportionate influence on shaping research agendas and on policy. Though ethical issues have been raised, there has been little engagement from the RCT community – a manifestation of its power in the profession. As current safeguards (such as oversight by Institutional Review Boards) have failed to protect human subjects, the concluding section discusses possible ways to resolve these issues.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Vincent J.M. DiMaio ◽  
D. Kimberley Molina

Author(s):  
Allan J. Kimmel

Social influence researchers encounter a variety of ethical issues in the conduct of their investigations, including those involving deception, privacy, and confidentiality. Facing a growing array of ethical guidelines, governmental regulations, and institutional review, researchers are faced with decisions that often pit the search for scientific knowledge against human welfare. Ethical decisions pertaining to social influence research methodology can have an impact on research participants, organizations, the scientific discipline, and society in general. This chapter surveys ethical issues in the conduct of laboratory, field, online, and applied research; describes remedial efforts (e.g., debriefing) to mitigate adverse research effects; and considers the nature of the ethical review process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document