Tag: education

Bioethics Blogs

How you’ll grow up, and how you’ll grow old

By Nathan Ahlgrim
Nathan Ahlgrim is a third year Ph.D. candidate in the Neuroscience Program at Emory. In his research, he studies how different brain regions interact to make certain memories stronger than others. In his own life, he strengthens his own brain power by hiking through the north Georgia mountains and reading highly technical science…fiction.

An ounce of prevention can only be worth a pound of cure if you know what to prevent in the first place. The solution to modifying disease onset can be fairly straightforward if the prevention techniques are rooted in lifestyle, such as maintaining a healthy diet and weight to prevent hypertension and type-II diabetes. However, disorders of the brain are more complicated – both to treat and to predict. The emerging science of preclinical detection of brain disorders was on display at Emory University during the April 28th symposium entitled, “The Use of Preclinical Biomarkers for Brain Diseases: A Neuroethical Dilemma.” Perspectives from ethicists, researchers conducting preclinical research, and participants or family members of those involved in clinical research were brought together over the course of the symposium. The diversity of panelists provided a holistic view of where preclinical research stands, and what must be considered as the field progresses.
Throughout the day, panelists discussed different ethical challenges of preclinical detection in the lens of three diseases: preclinical research and communicating risk in the context of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), interventions and treatment of preclinical patients in the context of schizophrenia, and the delivery of a preclinical diagnosis and stigma in the context of Alzheimer’s disease.

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

Medical Students Can Handle the Truth; Their Mentors Should be More Open About It

By Shannon Tapia

Medical School is rough.  Fortunately there is a recent movement to make medical education more humane.  The movement to bring humanity, ethics, and love back into the molding of our future physicians is crucial. Personally, I felt my medical school was on the forefront of this push.  Perhaps it was because we had Jesuit priests for attendings and the hospital’s motto of “We also treat the human spirit” filtered into the treatment of students.  Whether it was something about myself or my medical school, I was fortunate to never experience the depression, competitive urges, burnout and isolation that is so prevalent during American medical school years…

But there is an underlying and hidden truth that is never spoken about, or at least wasn’t to me, in medical school.  As students we are warned how tough medical school is and furthermore how absolutely draining residency is.  When we’re in the thick of either in even the most uplifting programs and schools, we are monitored for burnout, offered services to prevent it, and given support in ways students and residents of the 20th century never were. More frequently now, we are prepared for these harsh realities.  But what we’re not told, ever, is that even if and when we make it through medical school and residency/fellowship to attending physicians we may well find it’s not greener on the other side.  We may still first experience burnout when we’re supposed to be summiting our Everest Mountain of medical training. As many mountain climbers will tell you, often the way down from the peak is just as hard if not harder than the climb up.

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

Webinar Follow-Up: Incorporating Active Learning into IACUC Training

As part of the Interagency Collaborative Animal Research Education (ICARE) Project, PRIM&R convened two Train-the-Trainers Institutes (TTIs) in 2016 for IACUC leaders and educators to learn how active learning techniques can enhance the effectiveness of their training programs. To further disseminate the materials and lessons from the TTIs, PRIM&R hosted the free webinar Incorporating Active Learning into IACUC Training. We’re pleased to share answers to follow-up questions from the webinar with the readers of Ampersand.

The post Webinar Follow-Up: Incorporating Active Learning into IACUC Training appeared first on Ampersand.

Source: Ampersand, the blog of PRIM&R.

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:In It To Win It: Is Prize-giving Bad for Philosophy? Written by Rebecca Buxton

This essay received an Honorable Mention in the Graduate Category of the Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics 2017

Written by University of Oxford student, Rebecca Buxton

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
We live in a culture of prize-giving. The Nobel Prize, the Medal of Honour, the Man Booker and, not least, the Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics. But, in giving such prizes, and indeed prize money, we operate under the assumption that prizes are ‘good’. However, the fact that I am offered a prize for writing
a practical ethics paper is itself a practical ethical conundrum. This essay takes a preliminary amble into the ethical problem of prize-giving with regards to Philosophy specifically, offering reasons as to why we should question current practice. Primarily, I will define what we mean by the term ‘prize’ noting its
necessary and sufficient features. Secondly, I discuss the impact of prize-giving on research, considering how the ramifications of ascribing value through prizes affects the course of academia, especially when focusing on the lack of diverse voices within the subject. I then consider the deeper question of philosophical value: does the very act of constructing an ethical argument for a prize diminish the value of the work?

THE IDEA OF ‘THE PRIZE’
Though prize-giving is prolific in our current institutional culture, we lack any analytically clear literature on what constitutes a ‘prize’. There is, however, some work focusing on the philosophical concept of ‘the gift’, most notably Derrida’s argument that the ‘true’ gift is impossible as we can never eliminate the possibility of the counter-gift.[1] Unlike gifts, prizes depend upon a reciprocal process; you receive a prize in virtue of being or doing something.

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

Welcome 2017 HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute Fellows!

The Fordham University HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute (RETI) is pleased to announce that the following individuals have been selected as 2017 fellows:

Dr. Stephanie Cook, New York University
Estreet
Dr. Anthony Estreet, Morgan State University
Fielding Miller
Dr. Rebecca Fielding-Miller, University of California, San Diego
Guta
Dr. Adrian Guta, University of Windsor
Pagano-Therrien
Dr. Jesica Pagano-Therrien, University of Massachusetts 
Pasipanodya
Dr. Elizabeth Pasipanodya, University of California, San Diego
Philbin
Dr. Morgan Philbin, Columbia University
John_S
Dr. John Sauceda, University of California, San Francisco

The Fordham University  HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute (RETI), now in its 7th year, is a training grant sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (R25 DA031608-07), Principal Investigator, Dr. Celia B. Fisher, Director, Center for Ethics Education). The RETI provides early-career investigators in the social, behavioral, medical and public health fields with an opportunity to gain research ethics training. In doing so, RETI addresses the urgent need for HIV and drug use investigators who can identify and address ethical issues, engage drug using and other at-risk communities in the construction and evaluation of population sensitive research protections, and generate empirical data to inform ethical practice and policies for HIV prevention science. Through their funded Mentored Research Projects (MRP), RETI fellows generate empirical data, publish their findings in a variety of high-impact academic journals, and are trained to apply for increasing grant opportunities.

The program’s aims are to: (1) increase trainees’ knowledge of and capacity to address key ethical issues in HIV and drug abuse prevention research; (2) increase trainees’ capacity to ethically engage participants and communities in the construction of participant protections that reflect the values and merit the trust of all stakeholders in HIV and drug abuse prevention research.; (3) increase trainees’ capacity to conduct research that will generate data to inform HIV and drug abuse prevention research practices and policies; and (4) create and sustain an information and communication network for trainees, faculty and others in the field for enhancing ethical knowledge, ethical dialogue and future professional collaborations in HIV and drug abuse prevention research ethics.

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

Welcome 2017 HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute Fellows!

The Fordham University HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute (RETI) is pleased to announce that the following individuals have been selected as 2017 fellows:

Dr. Stephanie Cook, New York University EstreetDr. Anthony Estreet, Morgan State University Fielding MillerDr. Rebecca Fielding-Miller, University of California, San Diego GutaDr. Adrian Guta, University of Windsor Pagano-TherrienDr. Jesica Pagano-Therrien, University of Massachusetts  PasipanodyaDr. Elizabeth Pasipanodya, University of California, San Diego PhilbinDr. Morgan Philbin, Columbia University John_SDr. John Sauceda, University of California, San Francisco

The Fordham University  HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute (RETI), now in its 7th year, is a training grant sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (R25 DA031608-07), Principal Investigator, Dr. Celia B. Fisher, Director, Center for Ethics Education). The RETI provides early-career investigators in the social, behavioral, medical and public health fields with an opportunity to gain research ethics training. In doing so, RETI addresses the urgent need for HIV and drug use investigators who can identify and address ethical issues, engage drug using and other at-risk communities in the construction and evaluation of population sensitive research protections, and generate empirical data to inform ethical practice and policies for HIV prevention science. Through their funded Mentored Research Projects (MRP), RETI fellows generate empirical data, publish their findings in a variety of high-impact academic journals, and are trained to apply for increasing grant opportunities.

The program’s aims are to: (1) increase trainees’ knowledge of and capacity to address key ethical issues in HIV and drug abuse prevention research; (2) increase trainees’ capacity to ethically engage participants and communities in the construction of participant protections that reflect the values and merit the trust of all stakeholders in HIV and drug abuse prevention research.; (3) increase trainees’ capacity to conduct research that will generate data to inform HIV and drug abuse prevention research practices and policies; and (4) create and sustain an information and communication network for trainees, faculty and others in the field for enhancing ethical knowledge, ethical dialogue and future professional collaborations in HIV and drug abuse prevention research ethics.

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

Widening Gap in U.S. Life Expectancy

Caption: Life expectancy at birth by county, 2014. Life expectancy into 80s (blue), 70s (green, yellow, orange), 60s (red).

Americans are living longer than ever before, thanks in large part to NIH-supported research. But a new, heavily publicized study shows that recent gains in longevity aren’t being enjoyed equally in all corners of the United States. In fact, depending on where you live in this great country, life expectancy can vary more than 20 years—a surprisingly wide gap that has widened significantly in recent decades.

Researchers attribute this disturbing gap to a variety of social and economic influences, as well as differences in modifiable behavioral and lifestyle factors, such as obesity, inactivity, and tobacco use. The findings serve as a sobering reminder that, despite the considerable progress made possible by biomedical science, more research is needed to figure out better ways of addressing health disparities and improving life expectancy for all Americans.

In the new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, a research team, partially funded by NIH, found that the average American baby born in 2014 can expect to live to about age 79 [1]. That’s up from a national average of about 73 in 1980 and around 68 in 1950. However, babies born in 2014 in remote Oglala Lakota County, SD, home to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, can expect to live only about 66 years. That’s in stark contrast to a child born about 400 miles away in Summit County, CO, where life expectancy at birth now exceeds age 86.

Earlier studies suggested that Americans living in some parts of the country were living more than a decade longer than others [2].

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

The Right to Die The Law of End-of-Life Decisionmaking – 2nd 2017 Supplement

For decades, Wolters Kluwer has been publishing an annual supplement for The Right to Die: The Law of End-of-Life Decisionmaking.  This year, we are moving to a semi-annual plan.  So, there will soon be a second 2017 update, the “2017-2 Supplement.”


Highlights of this extra supplement cover the most recent legal developments—judicial cases, legislation, and news accounts of important legal proceedings that are not officially reported—concerning end-of-life decisionmaking. Some (and there are many more) specific important matters covered in the supplement include:

  • The passage of statutes authorizing medical aid-in-dying in two more states, bringing the total number of jurisdictions in which the practice is legal to seven.
  • The passage of statutes explicitly criminalizing or otherwise prohibiting aid-in-dying in two more states.
  • The passage of statutes authorizing default surrogate priority lists in two more states.
  • An innovative Montana statute authorizing physician decisionmaking for incapacitated unrepresented patients with no surrogate, agent, or guardian.
  • The passage of a statute authorizing a POLST program, bringing the total number of jurisdictions formally authorizing or regulating POLST to thirty-three. 
  • A Kansas statute forbidding the institution of a DNR order for a minor without consent from the parent or guardian. 
  • The passage of statutes in four states both forming palliative care and quality of life task forces and directing health departments to promote both professional and consumer palliative care education.
  • A strong statement of support for autonomy through advance directives from the California Court of Appeals as it awarded attorneys’ fees to a governmental agency that challenged the end-of-life decisionmaking of a husband, with his wife as agent, supported by the health providers involved in his care. 

Source: bioethics.net, a blog maintained by the editorial staff of The American Journal of Bioethics.

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

The Right to Die The Law of End-of-Life Decisionmaking – 2nd 2017 Supplement

For decades, Wolters Kluwer has been publishing an annual supplement for The Right to Die: The Law of End-of-Life Decisionmaking.  This year, we are moving to a semi-annual plan.  So, there will soon be a second 2017 update, the “2017-2 Supplement.”


Highlights of this extra supplement cover the most recent legal developments—judicial cases, legislation, and news accounts of important legal proceedings that are not officially reported—concerning end-of-life decisionmaking. Some (and there are many more) specific important matters covered in the supplement include:

  • The passage of statutes authorizing medical aid-in-dying in two more states, bringing the total number of jurisdictions in which the practice is legal to seven.
  • The passage of statutes explicitly criminalizing or otherwise prohibiting aid-in-dying in two more states.
  • The passage of statutes authorizing default surrogate priority lists in two more states.
  • An innovative Montana statute authorizing physician decisionmaking for incapacitated unrepresented patients with no surrogate, agent, or guardian.
  • The passage of a statute authorizing a POLST program, bringing the total number of jurisdictions formally authorizing or regulating POLST to thirty-three. 
  • A Kansas statute forbidding the institution of a DNR order for a minor without consent from the parent or guardian. 
  • The passage of statutes in four states both forming palliative care and quality of life task forces and directing health departments to promote both professional and consumer palliative care education.
  • A strong statement of support for autonomy through advance directives from the California Court of Appeals as it awarded attorneys’ fees to a governmental agency that challenged the end-of-life decisionmaking of a husband, with his wife as agent, supported by the health providers involved in his care. 

Source: bioethics.net, a blog maintained by the editorial staff of The American Journal of Bioethics.

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.