Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics ; : 1-9, 2022 Dec 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36511321

ABSTRACT

After a brief overview of ethical issues in an Australian context catalyzed by the current pandemic, this article focuses on data protection in the light of recent debates about COVID-19 data tracking in Australia and globally. This article looks at the issue of trust as a fundamental principle of effective and ethical COVID-safe measures undertaken by the government. Key to ensuring such trust are Habermasian participatory dialogs, which assume trust as a condition of authentic illocution, and an emphasis on short-term data capture.

2.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics ; 29(1): 115-121, 2020 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31858938

ABSTRACT

This article considers recent ethical topics relating to medical AI. After a general discussion of recent medical AI innovations, and a more analytic look at related ethical issues such as data privacy, physician dependency on poorly understood AI helpware, bias in data used to create algorithms post-GDPR, and changes to the patient-physician relationship, the article examines the issue of so-called robot doctors. Whereas the so-called democratization of healthcare due to health wearables and increased access to medical information might suggest a positive shift in the patient-physician relationship, the physician's 'need to care' might be irreplaceable, and robot healthcare workers ('robot carers') might be seen as contributing to dehumanized healthcare practices.


Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence/ethics , Ethics, Medical , Physician-Patient Relations , Artificial Intelligence/legislation & jurisprudence , Confidentiality/ethics , European Union , Humans , Informed Consent , Physicians , Robotics/ethics , Robotics/legislation & jurisprudence
3.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics ; 27(3): 440-446, 2018 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29845915

ABSTRACT

This article considers recent ethical topics in Australia relating to the health rights of children in the contexts of (1) detention centers, (2) vaccination, and (3) procreative liberty, within a wider framework of discussion of the competing rights of society, parents, the child, and future generations.


Subject(s)
Child Welfare/ethics , Ethicists , Human Rights , Australia , Child, Preschool , Freedom , Humans , Parents , Vaccination
4.
Nanoethics ; 10: 177-188, 2016.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27478517

ABSTRACT

Policy makers from around the world are trying to emulate successful innovation systems in order to support economic growth. At the same time, innovation governance systems are being put in place to ensure a better integration of stakeholder views into the research and development process. In Europe, one of the most prominent and newly emerging governance frameworks is called Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This article aims to substantiate the following points: (1) The concept of RRI and the concept of justice can be used to derive similar ethical positions on the nano-divide. (2) Given the ambitious policy aims of RRI (e.g. economic competitiveness enhancer), the concept may be better suited to push for ethical outcomes on access to nanotechnology and its products rather than debates based on justice issues alone. It may thus serve as a mediator concept between those who push solely for competitiveness considerations and those who push solely for justice considerations in nano-technology debates. (3) The descriptive, non-normative Systems of Innovation approaches (see below) should be linked into RRI debates to provide more evidence on whether the approach advocated to achieve responsible and ethical governance of research and innovation (R&I) can indeed deliver on competitiveness (in nano-technology and other fields).

5.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics ; 25(3): 414-20, 2016 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27348826

ABSTRACT

No single issue has dominated health practitioners' ethical debates in 2014 in Australia, but a controversial decision on gene patenting and the media focus on "Dr. Death," euthanasia campaigner Dr. Philip Nitschke, have given new life to these two familiar (and global) debates. Currently a dying with dignity bill, drafted by the Australian Green Party, is under examination. The Senate inquiry into the bill received more than 663 submissions, with 57% opposed and 43% in support of the bill, which has now been referred to a Senate committee. Will this be another of Australia's failed attempts to legalize euthanasia? The trial of Dr. Nitschke begins on November 10, 2014.


Subject(s)
Genes , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Right to Die/legislation & jurisprudence , Australia , Humans , Patents as Topic/ethics , Right to Die/ethics
6.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics ; 25(3): 518-25, 2016 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27348837

ABSTRACT

Upstream engagement is commonly regarded as necessary for the smooth implementation of new technologies, particularly when there is an impact on health. Is the healthcare context in Australia geared toward such public engagement? There are established engagement practices for issues of healthcare resourcing, for example; however, the situation becomes more complex with the introduction of a new technology such as nanomedicine.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/ethics , Nanotechnology , Public Opinion , Australia , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...