Are Physicians Obligated to Recommend a Plant-Based Diet? A Response to Maximilian Storz.

Maximilian Storz argues that physicians have an ethical obligation to recommend a plant-based diet to patients because such a diet: relieves certain chronic conditions, outperforms the Western diet (e.g. a diet containing animal products, among other things), and is ecologically sustainable. Contrary to these claims, I argue that a plant-based diet alone may not relieve chronic conditions, but potentially does so in combination with other lifestyle factors. With respect to the environment, I illuminate the landscape by discussing agricultural factors consistent across animal and plant farming such as energy and water. I conclude that physicians ought to recommend a diet that follows the science; such a diet as I have claimed is exclusionary: it excludes processed foods, especially added sugars. Lifestylfe factors also deserve to be discussed in the medical encounter as their incorporation may lead to even better health outcomes.

Pharmaceuticals in the Water: The Need for Environmental Bioethics.

Pharmaceuticals are present in various water sources used by wildlife and as drinking water for humans. Research shows that certain pharmaceuticals, sold over the counter and by prescription only, can harm wildlife. Moreover, the human ingestion of water contaminated by polypharmacy presents a potential cause for concern for human health. Despite the wide scope of this problem, environmental bioethics has not adequately engaged with this topic and, instead, has concerned itself with healthcare waste products more generally. The present essay calls for more ethical investigation on the topic.

Parachutes, randomized controlled trials, and all-cause mortality.

In 2003 and 2018 researchers discussed the perils of blind reliance on randomized controlled trials that have been substituted for medical experience and clinical acumen. Although these past articles do well to shed light on this issue, they neglect to discuss the topic of all-cause mortality in controlled trials. The current essay seeks to fill this void and expand the thought put into the appropriateness of all-cause mortality, especially when trials extend excessively far into the future. To do this effectively the current essay leans on trial data from statin research and evidence from cancer screening-where researchers have explicitly called for all-cause mortality to be used in lieu of cancer or cardiovascular specific mortality. The issue with such an endpoint is that it obfuscates the issue at hand, namely that a specific intervention is intended to have a specific effect, not that a specific intervention is supposed to have any kind of effect. The effect(s) of medical interventions ought to be relevant to their intended mechanism of action and not simply any positive effect that can be pulled from trial data.