Tag: alternatives

Bioethics News

Donor Spotlight

The Berman Institute takes on some of the greatest challenges facing the world today—challenges that lie at the heart of progress and our humanity. As one of the largest and most distinguished bioethics programs in the world, it is Johns Hopkins University’s home for bioethics scholarship and teaching, working with and within the schools of Public Health, Medicine, Advanced International Studies, Nursing, and, Arts and Sciences. The Institute’s work helps foresee and inform debates on complex moral challenges; discerns ethically acceptable alternatives in medical, scientific, and public health policy; and helps to prepare the next generation of health professionals as well as scholars in bioethics.

 

Our work would not be possible without the generosity of our donors. Philanthropy is the foundation on which Johns Hopkins and the Berman Institute were built, and continues to fuel them today, powering the engine of discovery and helping us to build a better world.

 

Long standing Johns Hopkins Berman Institute National Advisory Board member and supporter, Stephanie Cooper Greenberg, shares her observations on the institute’s role in navigating these complicated times.

“In the world we live in, there’s never been more need for the Berman Institute of Bioethics and its remarkable scholars who help us understand and decode the intricacies of fast moving science and medicine that affect our daily lives. When a bioethical challenge crops up on the front page or in the course of daily living, I know that those at the Berman Institute have already thought it through, and have helped me and others better understand the heart of the issue, what’s at stake, and helps me, and others, make an informed opinion.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Join our supporters. Make a gift today.

The Berman Institute takes on some of the greatest challenges facing the world today—challenges that lie at the heart of progress and our humanity. As one of the largest and most distinguished bioethics programs in the world, it is Johns Hopkins University’s home for bioethics scholarship and teaching, working with and within the schools of Public Health, Medicine, Advanced International Studies, Nursing, and, Arts and Sciences. The Institute’s work helps foresee and inform debates on complex moral challenges; discerns ethically acceptable alternatives in medical, scientific, and public health policy; and helps to prepare the next generation of health professionals as well as scholars in bioethics.

Our work would not be possible without the generosity of our donors. Philanthropy is the foundation on which Johns Hopkins and the Berman Institute were built, and continues to fuel them today, powering the engine of discovery and helping us to build a better world.

Long standing Johns Hopkins Berman Institute National Advisory Board member and supporter, Stephanie Cooper Greenberg, shares her observations on the institute’s role in navigating these complicated times.

“In the world we live in, there’s never been more need for the Berman Institute of Bioethics and its remarkable scholars who help us understand and decode the intricacies of fast moving science and medicine that affect our daily lives. When a bioethical challenge crops up on the front page or in the course of daily living, I know that those at the Berman Institute have already thought it through, and have helped me and others better understand the heart of the issue, what’s at stake, and helps me, and others, make an informed opinion.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Interview with Arthur Caplan

by Kaitlynd Hiller and Rachel F. Bloom

It is a difficult task to succinctly describe the professional accomplishments of Arthur Caplan, PhD. For the uninitiated, Dr. Caplan is perhaps the most prominent voice in the conversation between bioethicists and the general public, as well as being a prolific writer and academic. He is currently the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center and NYU School of Medicine, having founded the Division of Bioethics there in 2012. Additionally, he co-founded the NYU Sports and Society Program, where he currently serves as Dean, and heads the ethics program for NYU’s Global Institute for Public Health. Prior to joining NYU, he created the Center for Bioethics and Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, serving as the Sidney D. Caplan Professor of Bioethics. Dr. Caplan is a Hastings Center fellow, also holding fellowships at The New York Academy of Medicine, the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American College of Legal Medicine. He received the lifetime achievement award of the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities in 2016.

Dr. Caplan’s experience is not at all limited to the academic realm: he has served on numerous advisory counsels at the national and international level, and is an ethics advisor for organizations tackling issues from synthetic biology to world health to compassionate care. Dr. Caplan has been awarded the McGovern Medal of the American Medical Writers Association, the Franklin Award from the City of Philadelphia, the Patricia Price Browne Prize in Biomedical Ethics, the Public Service Award from the National Science Foundation, and the Rare Impact Award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders; he also holds seven honorary degrees.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Agreement and disagreement about experimental treatment. The Charlie Gard Appeal

by Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu

@Neonatalethics

@juliansavulescu

Tomorrow, the UK Court of Appeal will review the controversial case of a British infant, Charlie Gard. Charlie’s parents are appealing a recent High Court decision that gave doctors permission to withdraw his life support. They have raised money for Charlie to travel to the US for an experimental medical treatment.

 

Best Interests

The legal decision for Charlie will be based upon an assessment of his best interests. He has a rare genetic disorder affecting his muscles and his brain. He has been on life support since last October and has been progressively deteriorating. A neurologist in the USA has suggested that experimental nucleoside treatment might, in theory, offer some benefit, though it has never previously been tried in this situation.

The central ethical question is whether it would be best to provide the experimental treatment and continue intensive care for Charlie for several months more, or to withdraw treatment and allow him to die. How should we weigh up the risks and benefits of those two alternatives?

We have previously written about this difficult question. In a pair of editorials in the Lancet medical journal, we expressed different points of view. Dominic Wilkinson argued that the proposed course of treatment would do more harm than good. In his view, it is likely that Charlie would experience pain and discomfort from continued treatment; it is also unlikely, given what is known about it, that Charlie would benefit from nucleoside treatment. In contrast, Julian Savulescu argued that it is not clear that continued mechanical ventilation in intensive care is so terrible a life that it would not be worth living.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Stem cell research. The two sides of the coin

Science facing market

The “heads” of stem cell research

Stem cells today represent a great hope for the future of regenerative medicine due to their ability to differentiate into cell lines of almost any tissue, making them a promising therapeutic option for many diseases.

These pluripotent cells are found in embryonic and also in adult tissues. Their isolation and culture in specific media may lead to the development of tissues that are useful in regenerative therapies for conditions such as heart disease, myelopathies, diabetes, nerve injuries, retinopathies, etc. After their isolation, they are injected directly into the tissues to be regenerated, so that the stem cells differentiate into cells of these same tissues.

A third way of obtaining pluripotent cells is that described by Yamanaka 10 years ago, a finding for which he was awarded the Nobel prize in Medicine. Starting from a differentiated adult cell, Yamanaka managed to find a way of “dedifferentiating” it so that it returned to its pluripotent state, to then “redifferentiate” it into a particular cell line with therapeutic utility. These are known as iPS or induced pluripotent stem cells.

Similarly, tissues that simulate the function of certain organs have been reproduced in vitro from stem cells, and could, in the future, be an alternative to current organ transplantation.

The current state of the clinical application of stem cells remains uncertain. Although successful outcomes have been reported in some fields, such as cardiology and haematology, many clinical trials and therapeutic applications have failed due to problems arising in the differentiation processes and the appearance of tumours.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

How Different are Female, Male and Intersex Genital Cutting?

By Brian D. Earp  (@briandavidearp), with Rebecca Steinfeld, Goldsmiths, University of London 

Three members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam were recently indicted on charges of “female genital mutilation” (FGM) in the US state of Michigan. In Norway, meanwhile, one of the major political parties has backed a measure to ban childhood male circumcision.

Fearing that objections to female forms of genital cutting will be applied to male forms, some commentators have rushed to draw a “clear distinction” between them. Others, however, have highlighted the similarities.

In fact, childhood genital cutting is usually divided not just into two, but three separate categories: “FGM” for females; “circumcision” for males; and “genital normalisation” surgery for intersex children – those born with ambiguous genitals or mixed sex characteristics.

In Western countries, popular attitudes towards these procedures differ sharply depending on the child’s sex. In females, any medically unnecessary genital cutting, no matter how minor or sterilised, is seen as an intolerable violation of her bodily integrity and human rights. Most Westerners believe that such cutting must be legally prohibited.

In intersex children, while it is still common for doctors to surgically modify their genitals without a strict medical justification, there is growing opposition to non-essential “cosmetic” surgeries, designed to mould ambiguous genitalia into a “binary” male or female appearance.

Belgian model Hanne Gaby Odiele, for example, has spoken openly about the negative impact of the “irreversible, unconsented and unnecessary” intersex surgeries she was subjected to growing up.

In male children, by contrast, the dominant view is that boys are not significantly harmed by being circumcised, despite the loss of sensitive tissue.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics: Is Sex With Robots Rape? Written by Romy Eskens

This essay was the winner in the Graduate Category of the Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics 2017

Written by University of Oxford student, Romy Eskens

On The Permissibility of Consentless Sex With Robots

Recent movies and TV-series, such as Ex Machina and Westworld, have sparked popular interest in sex robots, which are embodied AI systems designed to provide sex for humans. Although for many it may seem absurd to think that humans will ever replace their human bedpartners with artificial machines, the first sexbots have already entered the commercial market. In 2010, TrueCompanion introduced Roxxxy, a sexbot with synthetic skin and an AI system that allows her to interact with her user through speech and affective communication. Another example of sexbots currently for sale are the RealDolls, which are silicone sexbots available in different models and upgradable with insertable faces and body parts. The question I address in this essay is: do humans require consent from sexbots for sexual activity to be permissible?

There are convincing ethical reasons to create sexbots. To begin with, sexbots can replace human sex workers, thereby reducing harmful practices such as sex slavery and sexual abuse.[i] Moreover, they can provide satisfying alternatives for individuals with sexual desires that could harm human beings if brought into practice, such as the desire to have sex with children or to engage in extremely violent or degrading sex. Furthermore, sexbots can provide a solution for individuals who experience difficulty in finding sexual partners, and can provide intimate companionship for those who feel lonely or isolated.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Incidental White Privilege

STUDENT VOICES

By Jade Reyes

Not every issue of morality that we are faced with is easily discernible— with an easily ascertainable correct action. Many of these issues are nuanced and multifaceted, affecting every person differently and involves a weighing process between imperfect alternatives. One of those issues is race or ethnicity and furthermore the perceptions and assumptions that come hand in hand. Race and racial prejudice are intricately woven into the fabric of American history. While the most prominent struggle between Whites and Blacks is entrenched in the legacy of slavery, another more subtle battle persists. This battle, in my personal experience, blurs the line of ethical and moral behavior in many settings; particularly social and business relations. This struggle is the plight of those who pass for another race– specifically those non-Whites who may be perceived as White, such as myself. This presents a unique moral and ethical challenge: having to toe the line between my ‘by chance’ white privilege and allegiance to my ethnic background.

Often the struggle to which I refer is given the name of colorism, in which light skin tones are preferred and fare better in arbitrary categories when compared to darker skin tones. There is this persistent trend; according to the historical record that having lighter skin regardless of your racial or ethnic origin is a good thing— a door opener if you will. For fair-skinned Latinas like myself, the identifier of white is available to me, but it comes as a powerful oxymoron to define myself as a white-Latino.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Incidental White Privilege

STUDENT VOICES

By Jade Reyes

Not every issue of morality that we are faced with is easily discernible— with an easily ascertainable correct action. Many of these issues are nuanced and multifaceted, affecting every person differently and involves a weighing process between imperfect alternatives. One of those issues is race or ethnicity and furthermore the perceptions and assumptions that come hand in hand. Race and racial prejudice are intricately woven into the fabric of American history. While the most prominent struggle between Whites and Blacks is entrenched in the legacy of slavery, another more subtle battle persists. This battle, in my personal experience, blurs the line of ethical and moral behavior in many settings; particularly social and business relations. This struggle is the plight of those who pass for another race– specifically those non-Whites who may be perceived as White, such as myself. This presents a unique moral and ethical challenge: having to toe the line between my ‘by chance’ white privilege and allegiance to my ethnic background.

Often the struggle to which I refer is given the name of colorism, in which light skin tones are preferred and fare better in arbitrary categories when compared to darker skin tones. There is this persistent trend; according to the historical record that having lighter skin regardless of your racial or ethnic origin is a good thing— a door opener if you will. For fair-skinned Latinas like myself, the identifier of white is available to me, but it comes as a powerful oxymoron to define myself as a white-Latino.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Increasing Access to Biosimilar Drugs

The development of ‘specialty drugs’
in the health care industry has created legal, ethical, and public policy
issues because patients are not able to get access to their prescribed
medications based on the expense.  Specialty
drugs are usually biologicals, treat serious conditions, and  are very expensive with no cheap
alternatives.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.