An Ethical Review of the Patent Waiver Controversy Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Focusing on Levinas" Ethics of Responsibility

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-106
Author(s):  
Youngjin Jin
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethics Of Responsibility

Global Responsibility and the Enhancement of Life

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-44
Author(s):  
William Schweiker
Keyword(s):  
Capabilities Approach ◽  
Moral Life ◽  
Global Ethics ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Moral Good ◽  
Global Responsibility ◽  
Ethics Of Responsibility ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Discourse ◽  
Historical Life

This article advances a conception of global ethics in terms of the centrality of responsibility to the moral life and also the moral good of the enhancement of life. In contrast to some forms of global ethics, the article also seeks to warrant the use of religious sources in developing such an ethics. Specifically, the article seeks to demonstrate the greater adequacy of a global ethics of responsibility for the enhancement of life against rival conceptions developed in terms of Human Rights discourse or the so-called Capabilities Approach. The article ends with a conception of ‘conscience’ as the mode of human moral being and the experience of religious transcendence within the domains of human social and historical life. From this idea, conscience is specified a human right and capacity to determine the humane use of religious resources and also the norm for the rejection of inhumane expressions of religion within global ethics.

The Ethics of AI in Biomedical Research, Patient Care, and Public Health

2020 ◽  
pp. 702-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Blasimme ◽  
Effy Vayena
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Healthcare Provision ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Ethical Frameworks

This chapter explores ethical issues raised by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of biomedical research, healthcare provision, and public health. The litany of ethical challenges that AI in medicine raises cannot be addressed sufficiently by current regulatory and ethical frameworks. The chapter then advances the systemic oversight approach as a governance blueprint, which is based on six principles offering guidance as to the desirable features of oversight structures and processes in the domain of data-intense biomedicine: adaptivity, flexibility, inclusiveness, reflexivity, responsiveness, and monitoring (AFIRRM). In the research domain, ethical review committees will have to incorporate reflexive assessment of the scientific and social merits of AI-driven research and, as a consequence, will have to open their ranks to new professional figures such as social scientists. In the domain of patient care, clinical validation is a crucial issue. Hospitals could equip themselves with “clinical AI oversight bodies” charged with the task of advising clinical administrators. Meanwhile, in the public health sphere, the new level of granularity enabled by AI in disease surveillance or health promotion will have to be negotiated at the level of targeted communities.

scholarly journals Effect of mindfulness on physical activity in primary healthcare patients: a randomised controlled trial pilot study

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Nymberg ◽  
Susanna Calling ◽  
Emelie Stenman ◽  
Karolina Palmér ◽  
Eva Ekvall Hansson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Dropout Rate ◽  
Activity Monitor ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Increased physical activity can have health benefits among inactive individuals. In Sweden, the healthcare system uses physical activity on prescription (PAP) to motivate patients to increase their physical activity level. Mindfulness may further heighten the internal motivation to engage in physical activity. However, previous research has not demonstrated clear evidence of such an association. Aim Examine the feasibility of the study design as a preparation for a full-scale study, and examine the differences, between three interventions, in change over time in physical activity levels and in related variables. Method Comparison between three different interventions in an ordinary primary health care setting: PAP, mindfulness, and a combination of PAP and mindfulness. Physical activity was measured with self-report and ACTi Graph GT1X activity monitor. Statistical analysis was performed with a mixed-effect model to account for repeated observations and estimate differences both within groups and between groups at 3- and 6-months follow-up. Results Between September 2016 and December 2018, a total of 88 participants were randomised into three groups. The total dropout rate was 20.4%, the attendance rate to the mindfulness courses (52% > 6 times) and the web-based mindfulness training (8% > 800 min) was low according to the stated feasibility criteria. Eleven participants were excluded from analysis due to low activity monitor wear time. Neither the activity monitor data nor self-reported physical activity showed any significant differences between the groups. Conclusion The study design needs adjustment for the mindfulness intervention design before a fully scaled study can be conducted. A combination of PAP and mindfulness may increase physical activity and self-rated health more than PAP or mindfulness alone. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT02869854. Regional Ethical Review Board in Lund registration number 2016/404.

scholarly journals Primary Prevention of Dementia: An Ethical Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Dorothee Horstkötter ◽  
Kay Deckers ◽  
Sebastian Köhler
Keyword(s):  
Synergistic Effects ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Medical Risk ◽  
Medical Risk Factors ◽  
Societal Challenges ◽  
Dementia Prevention ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Personal Level

Dementia poses important medical and societal challenges, and of all health risks people face in life, dementia is one of the most feared. Recent research indicates that up to about 40% of all cases of dementia might be preventable. A series of environmental, social, and medical risk-factors have been identified and that should be targeted from midlife onwards when people are still cognitively healthy. At first glance, this seems not merely advisable, but even imperative. However, these new developments trigger a series of new ethical questions and concerns which have hardly been addressed to date. Pro-active ethical reflection, however, is crucial to ensure that the interests and well-being of those affected, ultimately all of us, are adequately respected. This is the goal of the current contribution. Against the background of a concrete case in primary dementia prevention, it provides a systematic overview of the current ethical literature and sketches an ethical research agenda. First, possible benefits of increased well-being must be balanced with the burdens of being engaged in particularly long-term interventions for which it is unclear whether they will ever pay out on a personal level. Second, while knowledge about one’s options to maintain brain health might empower people, it might also undermine autonomy, put high social pressure on people, medicalize healthy adults, and stigmatize those who still develop dementia. Third, while synergistic effects might occur, the ideals of dementia prevention might also conflict with other health and non-health related values people hold in life.

scholarly journals European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education: a protocol for a modified Delphi study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e045635
Author(s):  
Erik Donker ◽  
David Brinkman ◽  
Milan Richir ◽  
Paraskevi Papaioannidou ◽  
Robert Likic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Junior Doctors ◽  
Direct Supervision ◽  
Modified Delphi

IntroductionJunior doctors are responsible for a substantial number of prescribing errors, and final-year medical students lack sufficient prescribing knowledge and skills just before they graduate. Various national and international projects have been initiated to reform the teaching of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) during undergraduate medical training. However, there is as yet no list of commonly prescribed and available medicines that European doctors should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. Such a list could form the basis for a European Prescribing Exam and would harmonise European CP&T education. Therefore, the aim of this study is to reach consensus on a list of widely prescribed medicines, available in most European countries, that European junior doctors should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision: the European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education.Methods and analysisThis modified Delphi study will recruit European CP&T teachers (expert group). Two Delphi rounds will be carried out to enable a list to be drawn up of medicines that are available in ≥80% of European countries, which are considered standard prescribing practice, and which junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without supervision.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center (no. 2020.335) and by the Ethical Review Board of the Netherlands Association for Medical Education (approved project no. NVMO‐ERB 2020.4.8). The European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education will be presented at national and international conferences and will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. It will also be used to develop and implement the European Prescribing Exam.

scholarly journals Reporting ethical approval in health and social science articles: an audit of adherence to GDPR and national legislation

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Asplund ◽  
Kerstin Hulter Åsberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Ethical Approval

Abstract Background Previous studies have indicated that failure to report ethical approval is common in health science articles. In social sciences, the occurrence is unknown. The Swedish Ethics Review Act requests that sensitive personal data, in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should undergo independent ethical review, irrespective of academic discipline. We have explored the adherence to this regulation. Methods Using the Web of Science databases, we reviewed 600 consecutive articles from three domains (health sciences with and without somatic focus and social sciences) based on identifiable personal data published in 2020. Results Information on ethical review was lacking in 12 of 200 health science articles with somatic focus (6%), 21 of 200 health science articles with non-somatic focus (11%), and in 54 of 200 social science articles (27%; p < 0.001 vs. both groups of health science articles). Failure to report on ethical approval was more common in (a) observational than in interventional studies (p < 0.01), (b) articles with only 1–2 authors (p < 0.001) and (c) health science articles from universities without a medical school (p < 0.001). There was no significant association between journal impact factor and failure to report ethical approval. Conclusions We conclude that reporting of research ethics approval is reasonably good, but not strict, in health science articles. Failure to report ethical approval is about three times more frequent in social sciences compared to health sciences. Improved adherence seems needed particularly in observational studies, in articles with few authors and in social science research.

Ethical Review of Primate Research: A Comment

1982 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-262
Author(s):  
Robert W. Goy
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Review ◽  
Primate Research

scholarly journals Evaluating pictorial support in person-centred care for children (PicPecc): a protocol for a crossover design study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e042726
Author(s):  
Stefan Nilsson ◽  
Angelica Wiljén ◽  
Jonas Bergquist ◽  
John Chaplin ◽  
Ensa Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Crossover Design ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Digital Tool ◽  
Legal Guardians ◽  
Ethical Approval

IntroductionThis study protocol outlines the evaluation of the pictorial support in person-centred care for children (PicPecc). PicPecc is a digital tool used by children aged 5–17 years to self-report symptoms of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, who undergo high-dose methotrexate treatments. The design of the digital platform follows the principles of universal design using pictorial support to provide accessibility for all children regardless of communication or language challenges and thus facilitating international comparison.Methods and analysisBoth effect and process evaluations will be conducted. A crossover design will be used to measure the effect/outcome, and a mixed-methods design will be used to measure the process/implementation. The primary outcome in the effect evaluation will be self-reported distress. Secondary outcomes will be stress levels monitored via neuropeptides, neurosteroids and peripheral steroids indicated in plasma blood samples; frequency of in-app estimation of high levels of distress by the children; children's use of analgesic medicine and person centeredness evaluated via the questionnaire Visual CARE Measure. For the process evaluation, qualitative interviews will be carried out with children with cancer, their legal guardians and case-related healthcare professionals. These interviews will address experiences with PicPecc in terms of feasibility and frequency of use from the child’s perspective and value to the caseworker. Interview transcripts will be analysed using an interpretive description methodology.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (reference 2019-02392; 2020-02601; 2020-06226). Children, legal guardians, healthcare professionals, policymaking and research stakeholders will be involved in all stages of the research process according to Medical Research Council’s guidelines. Research findings will be presented at international cancer and paediatric conferences and published in scientific journals.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04433650.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document