By Neil Levy
Journal of Medical Ethics
Originally published February 2010
ABSTRACT
It is universally accepted in bioethics that doctors and other medical professionals have an obligation to procure the informed consent of their patients. Informed consent is required because patients have the moral right to autonomy in furthering the pursuit of their most important goals. In the present work, it is argued that evidence from psychology shows that human beings are subject to a number of biases and limitations as reasoners, which can be expected to lower the quality of their decisions and which therefore make it more difficult for them to pursue their most important goals by giving informed consent. It is further argued that patient autonomy is best promoted by constraining the informed consent procedure. By limiting the degree of freedom patients have to choose, the good that informed consent is supposed to protect can be promoted.
The entire article is here.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Friday, May 30, 2014
N.I.H. Tells Researchers to End Sex Bias in Early Studies
By Roni Caryn Rabin
The New York Times
Originally published May 14, 2014
Amid growing evidence that many drugs are not as effective in women as in men, the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday warned scientists that they must take steps to alter longstanding basic research methods.
The N.I.H. has already taken researchers to task for their failure to include adequate numbers of women in clinical trials. The new announcement is an acknowledgment that this gender disparity begins much earlier in the research process.
Even in the most preliminary stages of investigation, many scientists for decades have tested their theories only in male lab rats or only in male tissues and cells. Now the N.I.H. wants scientists that it funds to include female lab animals and female cell lines.
The entire article is here.
The New York Times
Originally published May 14, 2014
Amid growing evidence that many drugs are not as effective in women as in men, the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday warned scientists that they must take steps to alter longstanding basic research methods.
The N.I.H. has already taken researchers to task for their failure to include adequate numbers of women in clinical trials. The new announcement is an acknowledgment that this gender disparity begins much earlier in the research process.
Even in the most preliminary stages of investigation, many scientists for decades have tested their theories only in male lab rats or only in male tissues and cells. Now the N.I.H. wants scientists that it funds to include female lab animals and female cell lines.
The entire article is here.
Now The Military Is Going To Build Robots That Have Morals
By Patrick Tucker
Defense One
Originally posted May 13, 2014
Are robots capable of moral or ethical reasoning? It’s no longer just a question for tenured philosophy professors or Hollywood directors. This week, it’s a question being put to the United Nations.
The Office of Naval Research will award $7.5 million in grant money over five years to university researchers from Tufts, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Brown, Yale and Georgetown to explore how to build a sense of right and wrong and moral consequence into autonomous robotic systems.
The entire article is here.
Defense One
Originally posted May 13, 2014
Are robots capable of moral or ethical reasoning? It’s no longer just a question for tenured philosophy professors or Hollywood directors. This week, it’s a question being put to the United Nations.
The Office of Naval Research will award $7.5 million in grant money over five years to university researchers from Tufts, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Brown, Yale and Georgetown to explore how to build a sense of right and wrong and moral consequence into autonomous robotic systems.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Shared Decision Making and Motivational Interviewing: Achieving Patient-Centered Care Across the Spectrum of Health Care Problems
By Glyn Elwyn, Christine Dehlendorf, Ronald Epstein, Katy Marrin, James White, and Dominick Frosch
doi: 10.1370/afm.1615
Ann Fam Med May/June 2014 vol. 12 no. 3 270-275
Abstract
Patient-centered care requires different approaches depending on the clinical situation. Motivational interviewing and shared decision making provide practical and well-described methods to accomplish patient-centered care in the context of situations where medical evidence supports specific behavior changes and the most appropriate action is dependent on the patient’s preferences. Many clinical consultations may require elements of both approaches, however. This article describes these 2 approaches—one to address ambivalence to medically indicated behavior change and the other to support patients in making health care decisions in cases where there is more than one reasonable option—and discusses how clinicians can draw on these approaches alone and in combination to achieve patient-centered care across the range of health care problems.
The entire article is here.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1615
Ann Fam Med May/June 2014 vol. 12 no. 3 270-275
Abstract
Patient-centered care requires different approaches depending on the clinical situation. Motivational interviewing and shared decision making provide practical and well-described methods to accomplish patient-centered care in the context of situations where medical evidence supports specific behavior changes and the most appropriate action is dependent on the patient’s preferences. Many clinical consultations may require elements of both approaches, however. This article describes these 2 approaches—one to address ambivalence to medically indicated behavior change and the other to support patients in making health care decisions in cases where there is more than one reasonable option—and discusses how clinicians can draw on these approaches alone and in combination to achieve patient-centered care across the range of health care problems.
The entire article is here.
Enforcing Morality through Criminal Law (Part One)
By John Danaher
Philosophical Disquisitions
Originally posted May 10, 2014
What kinds of conduct ought to be criminalised? According to a position known as legal moralism, the criminal law ought only to prohibit immoral/wrongful conduct. That is to say: a necessary condition for the criminalisation of any conduct is that the conduct be immoral.
Legal moralism does not state a sufficient condition for criminalisation. It just limits the possible scope of criminal law to the set of immoral conduct. Follow up questions must be asked of the moralist. Which members of that set are most apt for criminalisation? What kinds of factors speak against the criminalisation of immoral conduct? Only when those questions are will we be able to tell whether a particular type of conduct ought to be criminalised.
The entire blog post is here.
Philosophical Disquisitions
Originally posted May 10, 2014
What kinds of conduct ought to be criminalised? According to a position known as legal moralism, the criminal law ought only to prohibit immoral/wrongful conduct. That is to say: a necessary condition for the criminalisation of any conduct is that the conduct be immoral.
Legal moralism does not state a sufficient condition for criminalisation. It just limits the possible scope of criminal law to the set of immoral conduct. Follow up questions must be asked of the moralist. Which members of that set are most apt for criminalisation? What kinds of factors speak against the criminalisation of immoral conduct? Only when those questions are will we be able to tell whether a particular type of conduct ought to be criminalised.
The entire blog post is here.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The Ethics of Human Enhancement (Index to all Posts)
By John Danaher
Philosophical Disquisitions Blog
Originally published June 13, 2013
As some of you may have noticed, I've written quite a bit about the ethics of human enhancement over the past few years. For better or worse it has become one of my major research interests. This all started when I wrote a paper about human enhancement and criminal responsibility when completing my PhD (I now think that paper is terrible, but you can find it here). Subsequently, I wrote a (much better) article about the use of enhancement to improve the legitimacy of legal trials.
Well, just this month I finished writing first drafts of three separate articles on the topic,* and thought that now might be a good time to do a retrospective on all the blog posts I've done on enhancement. So here's a complete list, in reverse chronological order:
1. Douglas on Moral Enhancement and Superficiality (July 2013)
There is some evidence to suggest that technologies could be used to directly manipulate our moral emotions, thereby encouraging us to engage in morally conforming behaviour. Is this a welcome development? Some argue it leads to a more superficial, less worthy type of moral behaviour.
The entire blog post and index on human enhancement is here.
Philosophical Disquisitions Blog
Originally published June 13, 2013
As some of you may have noticed, I've written quite a bit about the ethics of human enhancement over the past few years. For better or worse it has become one of my major research interests. This all started when I wrote a paper about human enhancement and criminal responsibility when completing my PhD (I now think that paper is terrible, but you can find it here). Subsequently, I wrote a (much better) article about the use of enhancement to improve the legitimacy of legal trials.
Well, just this month I finished writing first drafts of three separate articles on the topic,* and thought that now might be a good time to do a retrospective on all the blog posts I've done on enhancement. So here's a complete list, in reverse chronological order:
1. Douglas on Moral Enhancement and Superficiality (July 2013)
There is some evidence to suggest that technologies could be used to directly manipulate our moral emotions, thereby encouraging us to engage in morally conforming behaviour. Is this a welcome development? Some argue it leads to a more superficial, less worthy type of moral behaviour.
The entire blog post and index on human enhancement is here.
Stanford panel debates: Does teaching ethics do any good?
In an event sponsored by the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, faculty from Stanford’s business school, law school and Philosophy Department say such courses equip students with the tools to engage with ethical problems.
BY SALIL DUDANI
Stanford Report
Originally posted May 13, 2014
Stanford University requires every undergraduate to take a class that deals with ethics. But can something as personal as ethics be taught in a classroom? Can classes in ethics make students more virtuous individuals? Or is that the wrong question to focus on?
These are the issues that a panel of Stanford scholars addressed in an event titled Does Teaching Ethics do any Good? It was sponsored by the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society as part of a series of talks marking its 25th anniversary.
Approaching the topic from diverse academic backgrounds, the Stanford professors who participated in the discussion agreed that ethics classes cannot be expected to make students more ethical. However, they articulated several other benefits, such as teaching students to fruitfully and confidently engage in ethical dialogue.
The entire article is here.
Editor's note: In podcast Episode 8, we discuss the counterintuitive fact that teaching ethics or ethics codes does not necessarily make a person more ethical.
BY SALIL DUDANI
Stanford Report
Originally posted May 13, 2014
Stanford University requires every undergraduate to take a class that deals with ethics. But can something as personal as ethics be taught in a classroom? Can classes in ethics make students more virtuous individuals? Or is that the wrong question to focus on?
These are the issues that a panel of Stanford scholars addressed in an event titled Does Teaching Ethics do any Good? It was sponsored by the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society as part of a series of talks marking its 25th anniversary.
Approaching the topic from diverse academic backgrounds, the Stanford professors who participated in the discussion agreed that ethics classes cannot be expected to make students more ethical. However, they articulated several other benefits, such as teaching students to fruitfully and confidently engage in ethical dialogue.
The entire article is here.
Editor's note: In podcast Episode 8, we discuss the counterintuitive fact that teaching ethics or ethics codes does not necessarily make a person more ethical.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Are we ready for a prenatal screening test for autism?
A blood test for diagnosing autism is becoming a realistic possibility, but the ethical implications are profound
By David Cox
Originally published May 1, 2014
Here are two excerpts:
One approach is to compare blood samples from autism patients and healthy individuals and search for what is known as a protein fingerprint – a set of protein levels that is consistently and markedly different in people with autism. So far this has been done relatively successfully in Asperger's syndrome, forming the basis of a blood test that can diagnose the disorder with 80% accuracy, and there are hopes this feat can soon be replicated for autism disorder.
(cut)
"The whole ethos behind medicine is to do no harm and if the test is only 80% accurate, it means a proportion of people will be told they have the condition when they don't, so you've raised anxieties unnecessarily. Equally if the test is missing people, then they'll be going away thinking I'm fine when they could be getting support."
Whether measuring protein levels alone should ever be sufficient for a diagnosis is also open to question. Like all neuropsychiatric conditions, autism has varying degrees of severity, meaning some patients require constant care while those with "high-functioning autism" are capable of living independently, adapting to society around them and holding down a job. Right now, such a test would merely pool everyone with autism into the same category. Should we be intervening at all in some cases?
The entire story is here.
By David Cox
Originally published May 1, 2014
Here are two excerpts:
One approach is to compare blood samples from autism patients and healthy individuals and search for what is known as a protein fingerprint – a set of protein levels that is consistently and markedly different in people with autism. So far this has been done relatively successfully in Asperger's syndrome, forming the basis of a blood test that can diagnose the disorder with 80% accuracy, and there are hopes this feat can soon be replicated for autism disorder.
(cut)
"The whole ethos behind medicine is to do no harm and if the test is only 80% accurate, it means a proportion of people will be told they have the condition when they don't, so you've raised anxieties unnecessarily. Equally if the test is missing people, then they'll be going away thinking I'm fine when they could be getting support."
Whether measuring protein levels alone should ever be sufficient for a diagnosis is also open to question. Like all neuropsychiatric conditions, autism has varying degrees of severity, meaning some patients require constant care while those with "high-functioning autism" are capable of living independently, adapting to society around them and holding down a job. Right now, such a test would merely pool everyone with autism into the same category. Should we be intervening at all in some cases?
The entire story is here.
Ever-so-slight delay improves decision-making accuracy
By Columbia University Medical Center
Press Release
Originally released on March 8, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
“Decision making isn’t always easy, and sometimes we make errors on seemingly trivial tasks, especially if multiple sources of information compete for our attention,” said first author Tobias Teichert, PhD, a postdoctoral research scientist in neuroscience at CUMC at the time of the study and now an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh. “We have identified a novel mechanism that is surprisingly effective at improving response accuracy.
The mechanism requires that decision-makers do nothing—just briefly. “Postponing the onset of the decision process by as little as 50 to 100 milliseconds enables the brain to focus attention on the most relevant information and block out irrelevant distractors,” said last author Jack Grinband, PhD, associate research scientist in the Taub Institute and assistant professor of clinical radiology (physics). “This way, rather than working longer or harder at making the decision, the brain simply postpones the decision onset to a more beneficial point in time.”
The entire press release can be found at PsyPost here.
Press Release
Originally released on March 8, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
“Decision making isn’t always easy, and sometimes we make errors on seemingly trivial tasks, especially if multiple sources of information compete for our attention,” said first author Tobias Teichert, PhD, a postdoctoral research scientist in neuroscience at CUMC at the time of the study and now an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh. “We have identified a novel mechanism that is surprisingly effective at improving response accuracy.
The mechanism requires that decision-makers do nothing—just briefly. “Postponing the onset of the decision process by as little as 50 to 100 milliseconds enables the brain to focus attention on the most relevant information and block out irrelevant distractors,” said last author Jack Grinband, PhD, associate research scientist in the Taub Institute and assistant professor of clinical radiology (physics). “This way, rather than working longer or harder at making the decision, the brain simply postpones the decision onset to a more beneficial point in time.”
The entire press release can be found at PsyPost here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)