Misanthropy,idealism and attitudes towards animals

Abstract

When evaluating the ethical status of an action that harms a nonhuman animal (henceforth animal), one might weigh the benefit to humankind against the cost of the harm done to the animal. To the extent that one does not like humans (is misanthropic), one will not be likely to think that benefits to humans can justify doing harm to animals. We hypothesized that misanthropy would be less strongly related to support for animal rights among idealists (who tend not to do cost-benefit analysis) than among nonidealists. College students (n=154) completed a questionnaire which included questions designed to measure their ethical idealism (ten items), misanthropy (five items), and attitudes towards animal rights and animal research (28 items). Respondents were classified as being idealistic if their score on the idealism scale was greater than the median score. The regression lines for predicting attitudes towards animals from misanthropy differed significantly between idealists and nonidealists. Among nonidealists there was a significant positive relationship between misanthropy and support for animal rights, but among idealists the regression line was flat.     

Managing ethical challenges around misattributed parentage within the clinical context: Insights from an African moral theory

This study argues the thesis that a set of guidelines ‐ firmly rooted in a particular interpretation of African moral theory, specifically, Ubuntu – will do a better job than current medical ethics frameworks, in addressing ethical challenges around misattributed parentage within the clinical context. Incidental information such as information with significant personal/health implications raises unique challenges for medical professionals. For example, withholding information of misattributed paternity accidentally discovered in clinical interactions may be seen by a patient as a violation of his/her right‐to‐know. Contrarily, disclosure where a patient has not requested information – or where establishing paternity is not the purpose of clinical visit/interaction – may be taken by the patient as a violation of his/her right ‘not‐to‐know’. Resolving these challenges remain a herculean task. African moral theory contains an under‐emphasized value for addressing such ethical challenges around misattributed parentage in the field of transplant. I seek to contribute this knowledge; and enhance clinician‐patient relationship. This study builds off three completed systematic reviews, which aimed to answer the following questions: “what are the ethical challenges regarding information health professionals face within the clinical contest?” and “what core aspects (or common themes) of Ubuntu can be identified in existing literature describing the same?” In this present study, I applied the definition of Ubuntu which captures the core aspects of the theory in ethical literature on the same, to address ethical issues around unsought information of misattributed parentage in the field of transplant.     

临床医生在基因检测咨询中面对伦理两难问题态度与选择 ——基于情景案例分析

目的 通过情景案例分析,聚焦基因检测咨询中的伦理两难事件,探究临床医生的伦理道德抉择及可能的影响因素。 方法 采用分层随机抽样方法,对624名临床医生进行了匿名问卷调查。 结果 对于XY染色体女性案件,88%的应答者选择告知敏感性信息;对于父系信息的披露,近60%的应答者选择单独告诉母亲;对于是否告知患儿其他亲属相关遗传病信息的案件,应答者的意见则相对分散。 结论 针对三个典型的基因检测咨询中的伦理两难问题,应结合国际相关指南的要求,进一步加大相关的法律与伦理理念、知识的教育与普及。     

Ethical Implications of Case‐Based Payment in China: A Systematic Analysis

How health care providers are paid affects how medicine is practiced. It is thus important to assess provider payment models not only from the economic perspective but also from the ethical perspective. China recently started to reform the provider payment model in the health care system from fee‐for‐service to case‐based payment. This paper aims to examine this transition from an ethical perspective. We collected empirical studies on the impact of case‐based payment in the Chinese health care system and applied a systematic ethical matrix that integrates clinical ethics and public health ethics to analyze the empirical findings. We identified eleven prominent ethical issues related to case‐based payment. Some ethical problems of case‐based payment in China are comparable to ethical problems of managed care and diagnosis related groups in high‐income countries. However, in this paper we discuss in greater detail four specific ethical issues in the Chinese context: professionalism, the patient‐physician relationship, access to care and patient autonomy. Based on the analysis, we cautiously infer that case‐based payment is currently more ethically acceptable than fee‐for‐service in the context of China, mainly because it seems to lower financial barriers to access care. Nonetheless, it will be difficult to justify the implementation of case‐based payment if no additional measures are taken to monitor and minimize its existing negative ethical implications.     

Freedom and Responsibility in Synthetic Genomics: The Synthetic Yeast Project

First introduced in 2011, the Synthetic Yeast Genome (Sc2.0) Project is a large international synthetic genomics project that will culminate in the first eukaryotic cell (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) with a fully synthetic genome. With collaborators from across the globe and from a range of institutions spanning from do-it-yourself biology (DIYbio) to commercial enterprises, it is important that all scientists working on this project are cognizant of the ethical and policy issues associated with this field of research and operate under a common set of principles. In this commentary, we survey the current ethics and regulatory landscape of synthetic biology and present the Sc2.0 Statement of Ethics and Governance to which all members of the project adhere. This statement focuses on four aspects of the Sc2.0 Project: societal benefit, intellectual property, safety, and self-governance. We propose that such project-level agreements are an important, valuable, and flexible model of self-regulation for similar global, large-scale synthetic biology projects in order to maximize the benefits and minimize potential harms.     

Bystanders and ethical review of research: Proceed with caution

Scientists seeking to conduct research with human subjects must first submit their proposals to research ethics committees (Institutional Review Boards [IRBs], in the United States). Some of these studies pose risks to “bystanders,” i.e., people who may be affected by the research but who are not enrolled as study subjects. Should IRBs expand their scope to include oversight over possible harms to bystanders as well as research subjects? This paper presents arguments against this step. Prior review of research with human subjects, despite its evident burden on the research enterprise, is a necessary caution, because the tension between the objectives of humane treatment of research subjects and sound scientific design and procedure has in the past led to serious abuses. This rationale is inapplicable in the case of bystanders. Moreover, in view of the many and varied effects of both research practices and scientific advances on the broader public over time, those who may be considered to be “bystanders” may potentially expand without limit; requiring IRBs to anticipate these distant and long-term effects as part of prior ethical review could greatly increase its burden and its deterrent effect on research. While conducting research without concern for serious potential harm to bystanders may be irresponsible and unethical, expanding the scope of prior review by IRBs to include risks to bystanders is not required by the principles governing human subjects research, and the costs and burdens of this expansion may outweigh any expected gains.     

VIEWS OF THE PROCESS AND CONTENT OF ETHICAL REVIEWS OF HIV VACCINE TRIALS AMONG MEMBERS OF US INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS AND SOUTH AFRICAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES

Given the ethical controversies concerning HIV vaccine trials (HVTs), we aimed to understand through an exploratory study how members of institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States (US) and research ethics committees (RECs) in South Africa (SA) view issues concerning the process and content of reviews of these studies. We mailed packets of 20 questionnaires to 12 US IRB chairs and administrators and seven REC chairs to distribute to their members. We received 113 questionnaires (76 from the US and 37 from SA). In both countries, members tended to be white males with advanced academic degrees. Compared to the US, SA members called for ‘major changes’ in HVT protocols more frequently (p = 0.004), and were less likely to think that HVT participants understood risks and benefits (p = 0.033) or informed consent forms (p = 0.000). In both countries, members were divided on several critical issues (e.g. the minimum standard for treatment for HVT participants who became infected during the HVT), but agreed that they needed more training. Of the SA respondents, 40% reported that they were ‘self‐taught’ in ethics. This study, the first we know of to offer quantitative data comparing US vs. non‐US IRBs/RECs, thus suggests key similarities and differences (e.g. compared to SA respondents, US respondents appeared to overestimate participants' understanding of informed consent), along with needs for education. These initial exploratory data in this area have important implications for IRBs, RECs, policy‐makers and scholars concerning future practice, training, policy, and investigations in research ethics, and prevention and treatment of HIV and other diseases in the developing world and elsewhere.     

Solidarity and justice as guiding principles in genomic research

In genomic research the ideal standard of free, informed, prior and explicit consent is sometimes difficult to apply. This has raised concern that important genomic research will be restricted. Different consent procedures have therefore been proposed. This paper explicitly examines the question how, in genomic research, the principles of solidarity and justice can be used to justify forms of diminished individual control over personal data and bio-samples. After a discussion of the notions of solidarity and justice and how they can be related to health care and genomic research, we examine how and in which situations these notions can form a strong moral basis for demanding certain financial sacrifices. Then we examine when these principles can justify consent procedures which diverge from the ideal standard. Because much genomic research is not expected to lead to immediate (clinical) benefits we also discuss the question of whether we can be obliged to make any sacrifices for future (not yet existing) patients. We conclude with the formulation of a number of conditions that have to be met before autonomy sacrifices can be reasonably demanded in genomic research.     

International ethical regulations on placebo-use in clinical trials: a comparative analysis

The ethical aspects of placebo control in clinical trials have been extensively and controversially debated in the last decade. However, a thorough analytical comparison of the different existing international regulations, their terminologies and their ethical principles concerning placebo, is still missing. The central issue in the ongoing controversy is the justification of placebo-use, if proven treatment exists. All present versions of the examined guidelines propose such justifications, but each guideline differs from the others in relevant details. Therefore the conditions justifying placebo-use according to each guideline are the focus of our attention. We will first propose a formalized general principle that defines the ethical acceptability of placebo-use. Then we will analyse three categories of conditions put forward by the different documents: the risk of harm or burden, compelling scientific reasons, and the availability of proven treatment. The analysis shows important normative discrepancies and contradictions between the examined guidelines. Especially striking is the fact that some guidelines allow the participants in clinical trials to be exposed to a risk of serious harm, while others do not. Finally, we try to show how the normative difference of each guideline could influence the decision of researchers or IRBs concerning the ethical acceptability of placebo-use.