人类辅助生殖技术研究的里程碑——2010年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖解读

试管婴儿技术是现代医学治疗不育症的人类辅助生殖技术之一．试管婴儿技术的发展,打破了人类繁衍的自然方式和过程,是生殖医学领域的一场革命,对生命医学的发展产生了重大影响．为此,在试管婴儿技术研究中做出开创性贡献的英国科学家罗伯特·爱德华兹,荣获2010年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖．     

Health care and the principle of fair equality of opportunity: a report from The Netherlands

In The Netherlands, the public funding of a number of health care services is controversial. What can we learn from this about the moral concerns that underlie these judgements? And, if there is anything to learn, can we use this improved understanding to scrutinise the adequacy of particular decisions concerning the public funding of health care services? In the present paper, I will analyse three cases: corrective surgey, In Vitro Fertilisation and liver transplantation. I will summarise the arguments that have been used to support or to challenge the public funding of these services. I will then assess the merits of Daniels’fair equality of opportunity account of justice in health care. Can this account improve our understanding of the moral concerns underlying our judgements about the public funding of these services? Can it serve to scrutinise the adequacy of particular decisions that are made concerning the public funding of health care services? My answer to both questions will be a qualified yes. Daniels’account can provide guidance, but not because we can deductively infer from it what is right and what is wrong. Instead, I will argue for a more casuistic use of the concept of fair equality of opportunity.     

Medicalization, Medical Necessity, and Feminist Medicine

New and proposed medical technologies continually challenge our vision of what constitutes appropriate medical treatment. As scholars and consumers grapple with the meaning of innovation, one common critical theme to surface is that it constitutes undesirable medicalization. But we are embodied creatures who can often benefit from medical knowledge; in addition, rejection of medicalization may be in some cases based on an untenable appeal to nature. Harnessing the power of medicine for women's welfare requires us to rethink the goals of medicine as well as implement fundamental reforms.     

Dances with data

Conclusion: Medical decisions concerning the end of life are a difficult matter and they evoke much emotional response. What is needed, however, is an open debate in order to improve the moral quality of decision making, not "dances with data". The central question in this debate should be, as Callahan aptly notes, whether medicine should involve itself only in that kind of "suffering which is brought on by illness and dying as biological phenomena" (emphasis added) or whether it should concern itself with the wellbeing of the patient. Apart from the fundamental question as to what types of suffering are to be considered as, at least in part biological phenomena, in The Netherlands most doctors, ourselves included, think the medical profession should do the latter.     

The rising level of medical student debt: potential risk for a national default

At the turn of the 20th century, mostly as a result of the Flexner report, medical education changed dramatically by establishing a scientific basis for the study of medicine within the institutions of the major universities. There have been major and dramatic changes in medicine during the past 80 years that have improved medical education in the United States, but these changes have also placed major economic strains on students who have educational debts. If medicine is a social responsibility to the public, then the public should share the responsibility of identifying and supporting new approaches to funding and financially managing the teaching of future physicians. There is no universal solution because there are various approaches institutions may take to structure these financial responsibilities. This article describes trends in medical student educational debt, identifies the financial needs of medical students, and proposes ways of addressing those needs to avert a possible national financial crisis among medical students. We must invest in medical students because they will be the leaders we need to help care for our society and our own families in the next century.     

Should There Be a Female Age Limit on Public Funding for Assisted Reproductive Technology?

Should there be a female age limit on public funding for assisted reproductive technology (ART)? The question bears significant economic and sociopolitical implications and has been contentious in many countries. We conceptualise the question as one of justice in resource allocation, using three much-debated substantive principles of justice—the capacity to benefit, personal responsibility, and need—to structure and then explore a complex of arguments. Capacity-to-benefit arguments are not decisive: There are no clear cost-effectiveness grounds to restrict funding to those older women who still bear some capacity to benefit from ART. Personal responsibility arguments are challenged by structural determinants of delayed motherhood. Nor are need arguments decisive: They can speak either for or against a female age limit, depending on the conception of need used. We demonstrate how these principles can differ not only in content but also in the relative importance they are accorded by governments. Wide variation in ART public funding policy might be better understood in this light. We conclude with some inter-country comparison. New Zealand and Swedish policies are uncommonly transparent and thus demonstrate particularly well how the arguments we explore have been put into practice.     

伦理管理在人类辅助生殖技术中的应用与价值

辅助生殖技术（assisted reproduction technique,ART）的飞速发展给社会带来了复杂伦理难题。因此,在ART全过程中加强伦理管理并对其后果进行评价,具有深刻的内涵价值和深远的社会意义。只有发挥生殖医学伦理委员会作为一个工作机构的职能,在医患人群中加强ART技术基本原理及相关伦理原则的宣传教育,强化医学伦理的监督机制,落实充分的知情同意等措施,才能促使医患人群都能够自觉遵守优良的医学伦理道德规范,保证人类辅助生殖技术的健康发展,使ART发挥积极的、革命性的意义。     

Bodies and borders: a new cultural history of medicine

Both medicine and the history of medicine have seen many changes in the last four decades. The way we tell the story of medical developments no longer concentrates on the important doctors and their ideas. The influences of social history in the 1960s and 1970s and cultural history in the 1980s and 1990s have broadened and enriched the interpretations of our medical past. The social historians have helped us to include politics, economics, and the leading ideas of any period we wanted to study; the cultural approach has added ethnography as well as an emphasis on language or discourse.Today there is a new history of medicine, one far more willing to cross disciplinary boundaries to ask questions about how we know what we know and why we do what we do.This article highlights some of the work in the adjoining fields of medical anthropology and of literature and medicine to demonstrate new interests, new questions, and new methods of inquiry. However, although we have cast our nets far more widely in the process of professionalizing the history of medicine, there is a question about whether we have lost the appeal to one of our core constituencies: medical students and physicians. We need to welcome some of the new changes in medical history as in medicine itself; the common goal is to achieve a better understanding of what we have done and what we are doing.     

Birds Do It. Bees Do It. So Why Not Single Women and Lesbians?

Infertile couples have come to take assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for granted. An increasing number of single women and lesbian couples also desire to have children and turn to ART, especially donor insemination, to fulfill this desire. While most married couples find that access to ART is limited primarily by the ability to pay, for single women and lesbian couples, the story may be much different. In the United States, they may find that doctors and infertility clinics view their desires as immoral and refuse to accept them as patients, although other doctors and clinics readily accept them. In most other countries, however, it is against the law for single women and lesbian couples to make use of ART, including donor insemination.
In this paper I will argue that marital status and sexual orientation should not serve as a barrier to accessing the world of reproductive medicine. I will base this conclusion on two arguments. First, that justice requires that we treat like cases alike. Just as we would not accept or reject patients for cardiac rehabilitation programs based on factors such as a history of poor eating habits, so too we should not look at nonmedical factors such as marital status when deciding whether to treat infertility. For the second justification for the conclusion of equal access to ART, I will examine the concept of the family. I will argue that it is morally acceptable for single women and lesbian couples to have children and to head families.     

Birds do it. Bees do it. So why not single women and lesbians?

Infertile couples have come to take assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for granted. An increasing number of single women and lesbian couples also desire to have children and turn to ART, especially donor insemination, to fulfill this desire. While most married couples find that access to ART is limited primarily by the ability to pay, for single women and lesbian couples, the story may be much different. In the United States, they may find that doctors and infertility clinics view their desires as immoral and refuse to accept them as patients, although other doctors and clinics readily accept them. In most other countries, however, it is against the law for single women and lesbian couples to make use of ART, including donor insemination.
In this paper I will argue that marital status and sexual orientation should not serve as a barrier to accessing the world of reproductive medicine. I will base this conclusion on two arguments. First, that justice requires that we treat like cases alike. Just as we would not accept or reject patients for cardiac rehabilitation programs based on factors such as a history of poor eating habits, so too we should not look at nonmedical factors such as marital status when deciding whether to treat infertility. For the second justification for the conclusion of equal access to ART, I will examine the concept of the family. I will argue that it is morally acceptable for single women and lesbian couples to have children and to head families.     

HOW DO WE WANT TO GROW OLD? ANTI‐AGEING‐MEDICINE AND THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC HEALTHCARE IN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES

Healthcare counts as a morally relevant good whose distribution should neither be left to the free market nor be simply imposed by governmental decisions without further justification. This problem is particularly prevalent in the current boom of anti‐ageing medicine. While the public demand for medical interventions which promise a longer, healthier and more active and attractive life has been increasing, public healthcare systems usually do not cover these products and services, thus leaving their allocation to the mechanisms of supply and demand on the free market. This situation raises the question on which basis the underlying preferences for and claims to a longer, healthier life should be evaluated. What makes anti‐ageing medicine eligible for public funding? In this article, we discuss the role of anti‐ageing medicine with regard to the scope and limits of public healthcare. We will first briefly sketch the basic problem of justifying a particular healthcare scheme within the framework of a modern liberal democracy, focusing on the challenge anti‐ageing interventions pose in this regard. In the next section, we will present and discuss three possible solutions to the problem, essentialistic, transcendental, and procedural strategies of defining the scope of public healthcare. We will suggest a procedural solution adopting essentialistic and transcendental elements and discuss its theoretical and practical implications with regard to anti‐ageing medicine.     

The fallacy of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence

The claim that we have a moral obligation, where a choice can be made, to bring to birth the 'best' child possible, has been highly controversial for a number of decades. More recently Savulescu has labelled this claim the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. It has been argued that this Principle is problematic in both its reasoning and its implications, most notably in that it places lower moral value on the disabled. Relentless criticism of this proposed moral obligation, however, has been unable, thus far, to discredit this Principle convincingly and as a result its influence shows no sign of abating. I will argue that while criticisms of the implications and detail of the reasoning behind it are well founded, they are unlikely to produce an argument that will ultimately discredit the obligation that the Principle of Procreative Beneficence represents. I believe that what is needed finally and convincingly to reveal the fallacy of this Principle is a critique of its ultimate theoretical foundation, the notion of impersonal harm. In this paper I argue that while the notion of impersonal harm is intuitively very appealing, its plausibility is based entirely on this intuitive appeal and not on sound moral reasoning. I show that there is another plausible explanation for our intuitive response and I believe that this, in conjunction with the other theoretical criticisms that I and others have levelled at this Principle, shows that the Principle of Procreative Beneficence should be rejected.     

Public attitudes in Edmonton toward assisted reproductive technology.

OBJECTIVE: To determine public attitudes toward the use and possible limitations of assisted reproductive technology (ART). DESIGN: Mail survey based on telephone numbers selected at random by computer. SETTING: Edmonton. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 602 Edmonton residents aged 16 years or more (57% of eligible subjects) reached by telephone agreed to participate. Completed questionnaires were received from 455 subjects (76%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes toward egg donation, sperm donation, selective fetal reduction, embryo freezing and experimentation, and surrogacy, as determined through responses to five cases. Comments and demographic data were also solicited. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 66% and 63% respectively of the respondents would donate an egg or sperm to a sibling; the corresponding rates for donation to a stranger were 41% and 44%. Selective fetal reduction was supported by 47% of the respondents, although only 24% would support fetal reduction to eliminate fetuses of an undesired sex. Most (64%) thought that live embryo freezing should be permitted by law. A total of 74% agreed with surrogacy if done for medical reasons, but 85% opposed its use for reasons of convenience. Overall, 72% of the respondents thought that ART should be regulated. A total of 58% felt that physicians should be primarily responsible for determining the allowable limits of this technology, and 38% felt that the public should be primarily responsible. Only 21% agreed with public funding of ART. Religious affiliation strongly influenced attitudes toward ART. CONCLUSIONS: Public support for ART varies depending on the circumstances of its use. Education is needed to make the general community aware of the various aspects of ART. The results of this survey should help physicians and governing bodies make informed decisions about the future directions of ART in Canada.     

Assisted Reproduction and Distributive Justice

The Canadian province of Quebec recently amended its Health Insurance Act to cover the costs of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). The province of Ontario recently de‐insured IVF. Both provinces cited cost‐effectiveness as their grounds, but the question as to whether a public health insurance system ought to cover IVF raises the deeper question of how we should understand reproduction at the social level, and whether its costs should be a matter of individual or collective responsibility. In this article I examine three strategies for justifying collective provisions in a liberal society and assess whether public reproductive assistance can be defended on any of these accounts. I begin by considering, and rejecting, rights‐based and needs‐based approaches. I go on to argue that instead we ought to address assisted reproduction from the perspective of the contractarian insurance‐based model for public health coverage, according to which we select items for inclusion based on their unpredictability in nature and cost. I argue that infertility qualifies as an unpredictable incident against which rational agents would choose to insure under ideal conditions and that assisted reproduction is thereby a matter of collective responsibility, but only in cases of medical necessity or inability to pay. The policy I endorse by appeal to this approach is a means‐tested system of coverage resembling neither Ontario nor Quebec's, and I conclude that it constitutes a promising alternative worthy of serious consideration by bioethicists, political philosophers, and policy‐makers alike.     

Moving beyond bioethics: history and the search for medical humanism

From both within and without bioethics, growing criticism of the predominant methods and practices of the field can be heard. These critiques tend to lament an emphasis on logically derived rules and philosophical theories that inadequately capture how and why people have the moral attitudes they do, and they urge the use of more empirically grounded social sciences--history, sociology, and anthropology--to draw attention to the complex factors behind such attitudes. However, these critiques do not go far enough, as they do not question why debate over ethical categories should have such a central role in voicing concerns about medicine. The importance of using other forms of inquiry, especially that of history, to examine aspects of medical practice and the emergence of bioethics itself is not simply to refine bioethical moral analysis. Instead, history can be employed to counter the preoccupation with translating concerns about medicine into moral terms and to move towards what is more sorely needed: a true medical humanism.     

Creativity in the Wild: Improving Creative Reasoning through Immersion in Natural Settings

Adults and children are spending more time interacting with media and technology and less time participating in activities in nature. This life-style change clearly has ramifications for our physical well-being, but what impact does this change have on cognition? Higher order cognitive functions including selective attention, problem solving, inhibition, and multi-tasking are all heavily utilized in our modern technology-rich society. Attention Restoration Theory (ART) suggests that exposure to nature can restore prefrontal cortex-mediated executive processes such as these. Consistent with ART, research indicates that exposure to natural settings seems to replenish some, lower-level modules of the executive attentional system. However, the impact of nature on higher-level tasks such as creative problem solving has not been explored. Here we show that four days of immersion in nature, and the corresponding disconnection from multi-media and technology, increases performance on a creativity, problem-solving task by a full 50% in a group of naive hikers. Our results demonstrate that there is a cognitive advantage to be realized if we spend time immersed in a natural setting. We anticipate that this advantage comes from an increase in exposure to natural stimuli that are both emotionally positive and low-arousing and a corresponding decrease in exposure to attention demanding technology, which regularly requires that we attend to sudden events, switch amongst tasks, maintain task goals, and inhibit irrelevant actions or cognitions. A limitation of the current research is the inability to determine if the effects are due to an increased exposure to nature, a decreased exposure to technology, or to other factors associated with spending three days immersed in nature.     

Letter to my future doctor

Everyone is talking. Physicians, politicians, newspaper columnists, patients, families, authors, talk show hosts, all are debating our right to decide how and when we will die. It is necessary and wise to obtain a medical directive. One question we must ask ourselves as physicians is, Can we do what we ask our patients to do? Here is one physician''s medical directive.     

Is infertility a disease and does it matter?

Claims about whether or not infertility is a disease are sometimes invoked to defend or criticize the provision of state‐funded treatment for infertility. In this paper, I suggest that this strategy is problematic. By exploring infertility through key approaches to disease in the philosophy of medicine, I show that there are deep theoretical disagreements regarding what subtypes of infertility qualify as diseases. Given that infertility’s disease status remains unclear, one cannot uncontroversially justify or undermine its claim to medical treatment by claiming that it is or is not a disease. Instead of focusing on disease status, a preferable strategy to approach the debate about state‐funded treatment is to explicitly address the specific ethical considerations raised by infertility. I show how this alternative strategy can be supported by a recent theoretical framework in the philosophy of medicine which avoids the problems associated with the concepts of health and disease.     

Moral expertise: a problem in the professional ethics of professional ethicists

Philosophers, particularly moral philosophers, are increasingly being involved in public decision-making in areas which are seen to raise ethical issues. For example, Dame Mary Warnock chaired the 'Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology' in the UK in 1982-4; the Philosophy Department at Auckland was commissioned by the Auckland Regional Authority to report on the ethical aspects of fluoridating the public water supply in 1990; and many of us are serving on ethics committees of various sorts. Not only are philosophers actually being called on or consulted, but many of us would argue that a philosophical contribution in such areas is essential. The involvement of moral philosophers in public policy decisions raises a question of professional ethics, viz, what role should a philosopher's own moral perspective or judgements play in the advice s/he gives, or contribution s/he makes, to public decision-making on ethical issues. Like most problems in professional ethics, this prompts reflection on the nature of the profession, and in particular on the expertise we take moral philosophy to offer. It also prompts reflection on how processes of public decision making in ethically problematic areas should be understood. I explore these issues in this paper.     

Is affordable and cost-effective assisted reproductive technology in low-income countries possible? What should we know to answer the question?

¹ Correspondence address. E-mail: j.d.f.habbema{at}erasmusmc.nl Decision making on infertility treatment in low-income countries(LIC) assumes answers to quite a few questions: how should theinfertility problem be defined? How often does infertility occur?What is the burden-of-disease of infertility? What is the incomein LIC, and what can be spend on health care? How cheap shouldIVF be in order to be accessible to a considerable part of thepopulation? With what alternative health interventions shouldinfertility treatment be compared? How cost-effective shouldIVF be in order to compete with those other interventions? Thesequestions will be discussed. The emphasis is on the situationin Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It is concluded that a place forART in a health care package is not straightforward. Many ofthe questions are not or only partially answered. Moreover,cheap and effective ART has yet to be developed and tested.From the limited evidence available for each of the questions,it could be calculated that an IVF cycle should cost between50 and 75 dollar in order to be a candidate for the inclusionin a health package in SSA. This estimate can easily changeconsiderably when in the future the calculations will be basedon thorough research. Thus, a targeted research programme foranswering the open questions, especially on quality-of-lifeimplications of infertility in different societies, is the preferredoption for facilitating the future evaluation of ART in LIC.