Tag: law

Bioethics News

The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage

On 9th February, the Virginia Senate approved a bill that would prevent people from being obliged to participate in “the solemnization of any marriage” and protect them from government discrimination for believing only in natural marriage between a man and a woman (same-sex couples, transgender people, single mothers). Senate law 1324, which was passed with 21 votes in favour to 19 against, strengthens the freedom of those who believe in natural marriage to live in accordance with their beliefs and prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex “marriage”. If it becomes law, non-profit organisations cannot be refused concessions or government funding solely based on their stance on marriage (see HERE).

La entrada The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

Source: Bioethics Observatory.

This article was originally published by the Bioethics Observatory of the Catholic University of Valencia. Up-to-date news and reports from the Bioethics Observatory at the Catholic University of Valencia (Spain), covering a wide range of bioethical issues including stem cell research, abortion, assisted suicide and much more. General interest and specialised topical articles with ethical implications, based on the latest research findings from some of the world's top medical and scientific journals.

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

The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage

On 9th February, the Virginia Senate approved a bill that would prevent people from being obliged to participate in “the solemnization of any marriage” and protect them from government discrimination for believing only in natural marriage between a man and a woman (opposed to same-sex couples, transgender people, single mothers). Senate law 1324, which was passed with 21 votes in favour to 19 against, strengthens the freedom of opponents same-sex marriage to live in accordance with their beliefs and prohibits the government from penalising them. The law states that non-profit organisations cannot be refused concessions or government funding solely based on their stance on marriage (see HERE).

View more HERE

La entrada The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

Source: Bioethics Observatory.

This article was originally published by the Bioethics Observatory of the Catholic University of Valencia. Up-to-date news and reports from the Bioethics Observatory at the Catholic University of Valencia (Spain), covering a wide range of bioethical issues including stem cell research, abortion, assisted suicide and much more. General interest and specialised topical articles with ethical implications, based on the latest research findings from some of the world's top medical and scientific journals.

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 Very Early Embryo & Its Moral Signifiance

by Andrew J. Prunty

As technology and biological research continue to develop in the twenty-first century, it is necessary to address and further define the ethical considerations of embryonic research and the appropriate rights that may limit the extent of human research on zygotes, blastocysts, and fetal scientific advancement. Because the area of harvesting embryonic stem cells remains significantly undefined, both legally and morally, there are vastly different opinions between researchers and bioethicists, mainly because of ethical limitations, on the rights that should be granted to cells with the potential to develop into human beings and the consequences of neglecting significant scientific research or advancement.

Current laws in the United States differ at the federal and state level, but there is no consistency in recognizing human embryos as humans, or affording them the same legal rights granted to a child; in fact, legal precedent actually detracts certain rights from developing embryos, favoring a human’s ability to destroy a potential human being (i.e. Roe v. Wade[i]) or the categorization of embryos as property (i.e. Davis v. Davis[ii], A.Z. v. B.Z.[iii], Marriage of Dahl[iv], or Reber v. Reiss[v]). These case law samples suggest the courts’ inability to reach a conclusion as to what is the status of an embryo.

The debate is not only circumscribed to matters of research, but to fundamental controversial and intertwined issues of bioethics such as: when life begins, embryonic stem cells, fetal rights, abortion, et cetera. All these topics are contentious and when one topic arises, they begin to comingle.

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

Why Doctors Treat the Dying, Even When They Know It’s Futile

If a patient is dying, and you know treatment won’t help, do you still treat anyway?


Professor Lindy Willmott, from the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, set out to discover why most doctors still do. She reported research results at the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) conference this week.


Willmott carried out a survey of 96 doctors and medical staff in Queensland public hospitals to help understand why unnecessary treatment was happening.


Here are a few of the responses:


“Doctors felt it difficult to not offer something because it made them feel as if they weren’t doing their job.” 


“The default is to keep treating.” 


“You do a procedure because it can be done, even if it doesn’t change the outcome.” 


“Doctors who are under time pressure might find that [continuing treatment] is the path of least resistance.”

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

Monthly Round-Up of What to Read on Pharma Law and Policy

By Ameet Sarpatwari and Aaron S. Kesselheim Each month, members of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) review the peer-reviewed medical literature to identify interesting empirical studies, policy analyses, and editorials on health law and policy issues relevant to current or … Continue reading

Source: Bill of Health, examining the intersection of law and health care, biotech & 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

Mailbag

Brief comments on four short articles from this week, on disparate topics:

James Capretta of the American Enterprise Institute (meaning he is politically right of center) pleads in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) for compromise between Republicans and Democrats on further healthcare policy reform.  Arguing that the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA) may never pass, he believes that a better result politically and for public policy would be if legislators could, in essence, split the difference between the AHCA and current law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka “Obamacare”) on some points where he sees some agreements in principle.  He proposes: 1) a hybrid approach between the ACA’s income-based tax credits for health insurance purchase and the AHCA’s age-based approach; 2) ensuring continuous insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions by modifying the ACA’s penalties for not being insured to fall more heavily on higher-income people; 3) setting limits on the favorable tax treatment of employer-paid health insurance premiums; 4) automatically enrolling uninsured people into a bare-bones, no-premium plan from which they could opt out in favor of re-enrollment in a different plan (a proposal that sounds to me a lot like the Democrats’ “public option” with a guaranteed fight over scope of coverage); and 5) limiting Medicaid expansion to tie it to reform of the program (something that sounds to me a lot like what I understand is currently in the AHCA).  Mr. Capretta knows a lot more about health policy than I, and has been at it a lot longer.  His ideas seem reasonable.  But he admits that bipartisan compromise “may be wishful thinking,” and I must confess that my reaction to his article is, “when pigs fly.”

The editors of Nature smile on Pope Francis’s meeting with Huntington’s disease researchers and patients.  Many of the latter group, they note, are poor Venezuelan (who there is not poor—and oppressed—these days?) Catholics who greatly aided research with tissue donations “with little tangible reward.”  The editors further cite the Pope’s encyclical Laudato si, with its acceptance of the existence of anthropogenic climate change, as a hopeful sign that the Catholic Church will one day use its considerable influence to compromise on “sensitive issues” such as sanctity of human life from conception, and embryo selection.  Still, “there is a chasm between religion and science that cannot be bridged.  For all its apparent science-friendliness, Laudato si sticks to the traditional Vatican philosophy that the scientific method cannot deliver the full truth about the world.”  The editors call for “fresh dialogue” between science and religion—by which they mean capitulation of the latter to the flawed-on-its-face epistemology of the naturalist.  I’m not buying.

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

Nathan Cortez on ‘The Week in Health Law’ Podcast

By Nicolas Terry and Frank Pasquale Subscribe to TWIHL here! With help from our good friend Nathan Cortez from SMU School of Law we discuss the American Health Care Act. Nathan is a thought leader in both health law and policy and administrative law … Continue reading

Source: Bill of Health, examining the intersection of law and health care, biotech & 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

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

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.