Questions related to Bioethics
Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm Johana, a biology student at the Francisco Jose de Caldas-Colombia district university, I have a job for which I need to contact a researcher and I found your articles very interesting. For this reason, I was motivated to write to you to request A help in front of work, our subject is bioethics and I would like to ask you some questions that you can answer briefly.
How does ethics influence biology?
What happens in situations where ethics is worth more than
Thank you for your attention and if possible please answer the questions, thank you very much
Hello, how are you? I am a student at the Universidad Distrital Francisco Jo sé de Caldas in Colombia, I have a bioethics project in which I have to ask a question and get the answer from researchers. I would be very grateful for your opinion
What do you think is the importance of bioethics in today's science?
1.A Study to Assess the Awareness of Justice, Equality and Equity -Amongst Homeopathic Practitioners in Practice Premalata Rotti, Kiran Patil, Girish Moogi, Rinku Porwal DOI Number: 10.38020/GBE.7.3.2019.146-150
2.Awareness of Patient’s Rights Amongst the Teaching Faculty of Non-Medical Teaching Institutions in Belagavi Rinku Porwal, Vishal Koulapur, Somshekhar Pujar, Girish Moogi, Kiran Patil, Premalata Rotti DOI Number: 10.38020/GBE.7.3.2019.141-145
"Global Bioethics Enquiry"
An International Journal Of The UNESCO CHAIR IN BIOETHICS (HAIFA)
I am a Ph.D. student in bioethics. My main interest is animal ethics.
For my Ph.D. thesis, I will study ecological utopias from a bioethics and animal ethics perspective. My aim is to see, understand and discuss how utopian writers placed animals in their works. I will then discuss my findings in the light of animal ethics literature.
To do that, I concluded that I should be using one of the qualitative research methods since I am not interested in quantitative findings (how many times the word animal is mentioned, how often it was mentioned, etc.)
Now, I am swamped into the theoretical mess of methodological approaches. Although I want to simplify it since I am only interested in animal ethics findings, I just want to approach the qualitative study as an instrument.
I did many readings and the draft conclusion for my methodology is that:
- I will not adopt any qualitative approaches since my research does not fit into any of them (ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, narrative research, case study ... )
- I will adopt a purposive sampling approach to decide on my sampling.
- I will use document analysis as my data collection method. (Is this the correct term?)
- I will use qualitative content analysis as my data analysis method. (or should I use thematic analysis?, or are these the same?)
Am I right with these selections?
Is there any conceptual/nominal/theoretical mistake?
Are there any subcategories to these approaches that will better fit my research?
If you think that approach wouldn't work, what would be your suggestion for a newbie in QR like me. (Although I am new in that particular area, I still want to carry out scientifically rigid research)
Thanks a lot, everyone,
Any help is much appreciated.
as a sexualities researcher, I am faced with a difficult question regarding the complex dynamics between seeking ways in which evidence-based science on human sexual orientation (e.g. on the normalcy of homo-/bi-sexuality, understanding of unchangeability and immutability in the domain of attractions; proven harmful effects of sexual orientation change efforts - SOCE; minority stress and stigma influence on LGBT+ people's well-being, etc.) collide with the prevalent doctrines perpetuated by various Churches (e.g. by Catholic Church, etc.). For example, in most of the Catholic discussions or written sources, I continue to see distinguishing between one's sexual orientation (as a trait) and the seeming (and seen as sinful) choice of acting upon this "drive" or "impulse".
By making this distinction, one is faced with a view in which human (homo/bi)sexuality is represented as (a) suppressible and (b) possibly changeable.
Here, I would like to ask you, fellow scholars, if you have some resources, references, results of your research as well as consequent suggestions in which it may be possible to find fruitful grounds for progressive discussion with a capacity for reconciling this schism between scientific evidence on (a) understanding of sexuality as human natural physiological need similar to hunger or thirst (Maslow 1987 Motivation and Personality), and (b) unchangeability of sexual orientation and harmful practices of SOCE which is backed by several position statements by respected scientific communities like World Psychiatric Association (Bhugra, D., Eckstrand, K., Levounis, P., Kar, A., & Javate, K. R. (2016). WPA Position Statement on Gender Identity and Same-Sex Orientation, Attraction and Behaviours. World psychiatry: official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 15(3), 299–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20340)
In this view, the religious (normative, moral) requirement of suppression or alteration of someone's sexual orientation and proscribed partner selection effectively restricting homo/bisexual individuals' potentials for forming and sustaining long-term relationships (and in this view acting upon their physiological desires) poses a substantial barrier to their well-being as well. The significance of these questions surpass individuals or interindividual psychology, they foray into law, religious freedoms, bioethics and so much more.
I am sure that many have asked themselves similar questions, so perhaps this discussion will also benefit other scholars.
To issue a permit for clinical trials, it is necessary to obtain approval from a number of expert bodies - the Commission on Bioethics, the National Medicines Regulator ... often the applicant has to apply separately to these expert bodies.
How necessary and effective are single window mechanisms for authorizing clinical trials?
I have been reading certain publication that mainly talks about Artificial Intelligence and how it affects behavioural capability in general (DOIs:10.1007/s10676-021-09598-8, 10.1177/2057047320950636, 10.2196/22845, 10.1007/s41649-018-0061-0, and so on). Along with the exponential progression of AIs in certain applications (Such as, but not limited to, Chatbots programmes).
It seemed somehow apparent to me, that there have been emotionalization towards AIs, such as employing it as friend. Of course the depicted AIs in popular culture references and sci-fis are, well of course still currently in the realm of "Sci-fi".
But seeing the progression, along with the prolonged isolation from social interaction (mainly due to pandemic) in many countries. How should we view such term? Especially towards the notion of self-consciousness, humanization, and of course biological realization in human-bots interaction?
Is it something that we must stay neutral, look forward upon, or perhaps an inevitable shift that will forever change how we view the norm.
Hi, I would like to start a conversation concerning genetic testing. What do you think what the advantages and disadvantages of genetic testing from the point of citizen’s and country’s view are? I would be glad for any texts and responses :) Thanks in advance!
Analysis of these scores will be helpful for understanding learner's needs and effectiveness of teaching session.
Do you think sociobiology as a science is alive? I give an example of my book, which describes the subject of study, methods of sociobiology. Everyone's opinion is important. I would like to make a translated version of the brochure in English, if this is of interest to researchers
Bolivia es un país en el que no existe legislación que regule la existencia o las funciones de un Comité de Bioetica hospitalario o asistencial. En función a su implementación, quiero establecer qué requisitos deben existir para facilitar o canalizar su implementación.
Este es un medio social y profesional con poca sensibilidad por la problemática ética en la práctica sanitaria.
In our country, approval for a clinical trial of a drug is issued by the national expert organization in the field of drug circulation (which is an analogue of the FDA, EMA and issues approval for conducting clinical trials of drugs) and the National Bioethics Commission.
Currently, a situation has arisen that the national expert organization refuses to issue approval for a clinical study of a combination of drugs. It refers to the fact that this is scheme of treatment (i.e. a treatment method) and not a drug. Is it necessary to obtain the approval of a national expert organization for the circulation of medicines (analogous to the FDA, EMA in a country) for a clinical trials of a combination of drugs, or in this case, the approval of the National Bioethics Commission is enough? Or is it necessary to obtain the approval of another expert organization?
I have a Bioethics class that I don't participate a lot due to my limited knowledge, Can someone help me creating a discussion question related to autism please?
The society expect too much from clinicians but how much society is contributing towards achieving the goals of bioethics as it is adding costs to treatment to clinicians
This U.S. Federal Government, specifically, the U.S. HHS, should be making housing available for all PLWH who are unable to provide such housing for themselves. This a basic concept that become a bioethical issue by promoting Testing and Prevention through Treatment campaigns and that those who have entered care should be kept in the best physical and mental as health as possible. Knowing that the system is failing these persons is tantamount abandonment. I would set up housing facilities spaced where most needed and offer food, hygiene, integrated health-care, medication compliance assistance, job training, substance use harm reduction, if needed, and a legal review of their cases to evaluate if thy have been the victims of some form of housing discrimination.
What are the international laws applicable to Do it Yourself Labs? Do they need to be registered bodies?
In this month, i mean Nov-2018 Chinese pioneered human genome engineering by editing genes in two babies using CRISPR technology?
He Jiankui defends 'world's first gene-edited babies'
This raises serious BIOETHICAL CONCERNS. i need your views on that
Have any researchers or the rule makers thought about the following questions?
1. All of the western research rules are so perfectly ruled and get respect, the trust of the general public. However, have you ever question why there are organ failures in the western medicine, but not in the Chinese medicine?
2. Why the severely sick patient's number increased so quickly and age going down also scared people?
3. Have you ever analyzed a drug's needs how long to be expelled from a patient's body?
4. Have you ever thought about a drug's lifelong accumulation impact to a patient?
5. Does the ethic is only limited to do the research itself or should extend to be responsible for the long-term health damage to the patient?
Researchers wants data availability for research and NCDRC / SCDRC are duty bound to issue instructions to all members to mention date of institution and date of disposal in each judgment. But it is not happening in all judgments including NCDRC/SCDRC judgments. This is the Limitation of Research on medical negligence cases that necessary data is not available for study.
Could anybody provide me with articles about the impact of Islam or religious beliefs on ethical behaviour in the forensic science workplace such as crime laboratory/ crime scene?
Submit a response (500-800 words) to the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (JBI) for inclusion in the 13(1) issue to be published in March 2016:
The Israel Medical Cannabis Authority plans to create mixed material sorted by chemical composition (CBD and THC) and impose this material on patients in place of the natural strains. Since this move is based upon a. very incomplete knowledge of the entire chemical composition of the natural strains and b. based on an untested hypothesis that only the measurable THC and CBD are relevant and c. based on considerations external to the welfare of the patients who are satisfied with the natural strains and used to them and d. therefore this constitutes a breach in continuity of care, I believe that imposing such untested matreial on patients constitues human experimentation without consent. Anyone out there with an opinion or literature to cite?
Steven Pinker recently wrote an op-ed arguing bioethicists should 'get out of the way' of biomedical progress. (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/31/the-moral-imperative-for-bioethics/JmEkoyzlTAu9oQV76JrK9N/story.html) He seems to be worried that the research ethics pendulum has swung too far in the 'protectionism' direction, delaying the development of numerous life-saving and life-improving interventions. But is he right? Pinker is light on the details, but are there topics or subfields where his criticisms are particularly apt?
Eric Racine, a bioethicist, notes: “Naturalism is a controversial stance [in bioethics] because it is customary to view ethics and bioethics as normative and prescriptive fields and therefore different from empirical sciences, which are descriptive and explicative. The reluctance to acknowledge naturalistic commitments, however, can impede methodological and empirical progress in bioethics” (2008, 98). Addendum to that:
"His [Seedhouse’s] belief that no distinction can be drawn between the ethical and empirical aspect of medicine is both wrong and dangerous Whether or not there is a fundamental metaphysical distinction between facts and values, in clinical practice one can and must distinguish the two dimensions…Failure to do so results in muddled thinking. Hume´s naturalistic fallacy is rife in medicine…[he] encourages the powerful body of opinion, which believes that medical ethics is just a matter of opinion…"(Toon 1995, 47).
I know Strong Naturalism, or bioethics as developed by Potter in 1970 doesn't have a good way to counteract a highly relativized medical ethic. Pragmatic Naturalism offers a slightly better model for medical ethics. But also falls short as it will marginalize weaker societal voices. “Thus, as Bellantoni notes, religious experience must, for pragmatic bioethics be at least discounted, if not fully discredited (2003).” (Tollefsen, Cherry, 2003, 541). Then finally, “[I]n the absence of something authoritative to guide moral choices, the phenomenon of moral assertion and argument becomes rather ominous. If moral assertion and argument are understood as oriented towards some standard by which it is to be measured as successful or deviant, then participants in the practice of moral assertion and argument can understand themselves in a common undertaking, aimed at resolving itself into the correct, or right answer. Where there is no such standard, by contrast, assertion and argument become more and more the mere expression of will, and the attempt to manipulate others into accepting one’s own personal dictates.” (540).
Physicians most of the time take risk and plead innocence when something goes wrong during a medical act, in criminal discipline they say they have a "dolus bonus", is that truth ? Never a physicians will practice a crime during a procedure. How we can explain the great amount of deaths by iatrogenic diseases and medical errors ?
Given the various kinds of health care problems we face as a result of an aging and growing population, is it possible to address medical rationing concerns without, at some point, necessarily reducing such considerations to economic (i.e. basic supply and demand) questions? That is, given the reality that we live on a finite planet with finite resources, must basic economic considerations always be present when we make decisions that directly affect human life and human well-being within the context of our health care systems?
I've submitted a research article that deals with new biomarkers, and is based on samples received from cancer patients. The patients didn't give the blood for this project, however they consented to use the samples for research purposes. The journal asked me an ethical clarification, because I'm working with human material. Can anyone help me with this? If there is any document for exception of ethical clarifications please send it to me.
Nanomedicine is one of the many applications of nanotechnology for monitoring or treating physiological conditions using nano-scale designed devices, particles, materials, drug delivery systems etc. Since nanomedicine implies dealing with how these tools and devices interact with complex biological systems, one could anticipate there are many issues to consider during their design, manufacturing, and delivery.
I would like to hear your opinion about this and have some input on why nanomedicine can be considered unique.
How select order of authors in case where one person designs experiment (aim, goals, materials and methods), order chemicals/kits, select statistical tests to perform and prepare manuscript while the other run assays and statistical analysis. Is there a quantitative method/model to show what is the value of selecting kit versus running experiment with this kit?
In 1997, former chairman of the President's council on bioethics, advanced the idea that “in crucial cases…repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power to fully articulate…” (The New Republic).
I suspect that few ethicists working today take this position at face value. Still, there do appear to be tangible concepts that are commonly defended on the basis of intuition alone - human dignity is one such example.
Do those who would reject any role for emotion and intuition in moral judgment throw the metaphorical baby out with the repugnant bathwater (cf. Jones, The depths of disgust, Nature, 2007)?
These bioethical issues raise diverse opinions as well as arguments that need to be analysed from an ethical perspective so that right kind of decision making ensues.
In Indonesia some generic drugs on the essential drugs list of both WHO and Indonesia should be available, but in practice they are not and have to be procured by unusual routes. Does anybody have any experience with similar situations in other countries?
The last few years, 6-mercaptopurine as well as Methotrexate were sometimes unavailable, causing interruption of maintenance treatment for children with leukemia. It has been proven that such interruptions cause increased relapse rates. What can and should we do about this situation?
Scientists are responsible for solving and understanding physical mysteries.
The scientific method outlines the steps in scientific inquiry where the meeting of reality and scientific vision occur at the level of the experiment. The solving of physical puzzles requires experiments for obtaining proof from the physical world and as validation of the scientist’s hypothesis. Results from scientific experiments orient scientific understanding into the direction of current dogmas or novel perceptions. This brings up interesting questions:
Are most scientists really interested in searching for the truth when conducting experiments or validating what they believe to be true? How does the competitiveness of science interfere with this process?
What does a scientist do when an experiment confers results that differ from the dogma they have been taught or are trying to establish?
The British newspaper "The Guardian" reported a couple of weeks ago (27 October 2012) that a gay man who several years ago had donated his sperm to a lesbian couple was now held accountable and told to pay up for the two children that he helped to be conceived. Apparently, if he did the same today, he would not be liable. What happened is that the lesbian couple separated. The children now live with one of them, presumably the biological mother, and the other visits them from time to time, but does not support them financially. In that situation, the mother sued the sperm donor, and he was sentenced to pay. Now, the question is of course whether that is morally justied. Never mind what the law says, can we really believe that he is morally responsible for the children, in the sense that he has a moral duty to contribute to their subsistence?
At first glance, this seems to be case of gross ingratitude. The donor was friends with the two women. They wanted to have children and asked the man for help. That's what he did. He did them a favour. As a friend. It was never intended that he have any part in bringing up the children or contributing financially. The only thing that was expected of him, as a gift to his friends, was to hand over some of his sperm.
However, not everyone sees it this way, as the letters of Guardian readers prove that were published a week after the original article. One reader wrote: "They are his biological children. He helped bring them into the world. He has a duty to cover their costs. He should have been less cavalier with his sperm." Another commented: "This isn't a question of gay rights, it's a question of responsibility for another human being / is a donor really any different to a man who has a one-night stand, which ends in pregnancy (wanted or not)? To reduce the conception of a child to 'doing someone a favour' is an appallingly cavalier attitude. Of course he should pay for the upkeep of his children. If he wasn't prepared to, he should have done us all a favour and kept his sperm to himself." Not much sympathy here.
So the question is whether biological fatherhood really is morally so important that it makes the biological father responsible for any children that may result from the use of his sperm, independent of the circumstances. In this particular case, of course, the donor was aware that his sperm was to be used to conceive a child, but he also had an agreement with the mother that he would have no further obligations, that his only contribution would be the donation of his sperm. Does this agreement count for nothing because biological fatherhood overrides all other considerations? But why should biology be seen as having such paramount importance? Underlying the comments by those Guardian readers also seems to be the intuition that sperm is not the kind of thing that we should be allowed to sell or give away. It is not a commodity. But again, why exactly is it not? Is it because, as Monty Python put it, "every sperm is sacred"?
I am an emergency medical guardian/attorney.
The challenge is the tendency to try to "cure death" among some medical professionals. The resultant pain to the patient and their reaction to it, i.e. pulling out a breathing tube, should be taken into account in the treatment plan. Thoughts?
I would like to do some research with a design similar to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22820554
What would be the best strategy of pursuing this in a sound, bio-ethical manner in a developing country like the Philippines? I am aware I would need to collaborate with a psychiatrist, but beyond that are there other hurdles that I might need to consider? Would the cost be prohibitive for a modest research budget?
The doc is at http://aoir.org/documents/ethics-guide/. The guideline seems to draw mostly on US-based literature and approaches and practices common within Northern America and thus may need an extension. Please also write whether you believe the document will hold for needs and practices in your field, especially if you work outside communication.
What kind of Bioethics is more appropriate for resolving moral conflicts related to public health in Latin America and other developing countries? Bioethics of protection or intervention?