Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 31
Filter
1.
J Law Med Ethics ; 48(2): 340-351, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32631184

ABSTRACT

Active shooter incidents (ASI) have unfortunately become a common occurrence the world over. There is no country, city, or venue that is safe from these tragedies, and healthcare institutions are no exception. Healthcare facilities have been the targets of active shooters over the last several decades, with increasing incidents occurring over the last decade. People who work in healthcare have a professional and moral obligation to help patients. As concerns about the possibility of such incidents increase, how should healthcare institutions and healthcare professionals understand their responsibilities in preparation for and during ASI?


Subject(s)
Ethical Analysis , Ethics, Institutional , Gun Violence , Health Personnel/ethics , Hospitals/ethics , Moral Obligations , Humans
4.
Clin Chem ; 64(12): 1696-1703, 2018 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29991478

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Genetic information is unique among all laboratory data because it not only informs the current health of the specific person tested but may also be predictive of the future health of the individual and, to varying degrees, all biological relatives. CONTENT: As DNA sequencing has become ubiquitous with decreasing cost, large repositories of genomic data have emerged from the domains of research, healthcare, law enforcement, international security, and recreational consumer interest (i.e., genealogy). Broadly shared genomic data are believed to be a key element for future discoveries in human disease. For example, the National Cancer Institute's Genomic Data Commons is designed to promote cancer research discoveries by providing free access to the genome data sets of 12000 cancer patients. However, in parallel with the promise of curing diseases, genomic data also have the potential for harm. Genomic data that are deidentified by standard healthcare practices (e.g., removal of name, date of birth) can be reidentified by methods that combine genomic software with publicly available demographic databases (e.g., phone book). Recent law enforcement cases (i.e., Bear Brook Murders, Golden State Killer) in the US have demonstrated the power of combining DNA profiles with genealogy databases. SUMMARY: We examine the current environment of genomic privacy and confidentiality in the US and describe current and future risks to genomic privacy. Reidentification and inference of genetic information of biological relatives will become more important as larger databases of clinical, criminal, and recreational genomic information are developed over the next decade.


Subject(s)
Genetic Privacy , Genetic Testing , Computer Security/ethics , Computer Security/legislation & jurisprudence , Databases, Factual , Forensic Genetics/ethics , Forensic Genetics/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Privacy/ethics , Genetic Privacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/ethics , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/methods , Genome, Human , Government Regulation , Humans , Information Dissemination
7.
Am J Bioeth ; 16(5): 25-7, 2016 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27111362
9.
J Med Philos ; 37(1): 28-48, 2012 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22241866

ABSTRACT

Physicians and other medical practitioners make untold numbers of judgments about patient care on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. These judgments fall along a number of spectrums, from the mundane to the tragic, from the obvious to the challenging. Under the rubric of evidence-based medicine, these judgments will be informed by the robust conclusions of medical research. In the ideal circumstance, medical research makes the best decision obvious to the trained professional. Even when practice approximates this ideal, it does so unevenly. Judgments in medical practice are always accompanied by uncertainty, and this uncertainty is a fickle companion--constant in its presence but inconstant in its expression. This feature of medical judgments gives rise to the moral responsibility of medical practitioners to be epistemically humble. This requires the recognition and communication of the uncertainty that accompanies their judgment as well as a commitment to avoiding intuitive innovations.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/ethics , Decision Making/ethics , Patient Care/ethics , Physicians/ethics , Health Personnel/ethics , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Philosophy, Medical , Physician-Patient Relations/ethics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Uncertainty
17.
Soc Sci Med ; 67(11): 1861-9, 2008 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18849100

ABSTRACT

Empirical research in social psychology has provided robust support for the accuracy of the heuristics and biases approach to human judgment. This research, however, has not been systematically investigated regarding its potential applications for specific health care decision-makers. This paper makes the case for investigating the heuristics and biases approach in the patient-physician relationship and recommends strategic empirical research. It is argued that research will be valuable for particular decisions in the clinic and for examining and altering the background conditions of patient and physician decision-making.


Subject(s)
Decision Theory , Physician-Patient Relations , Problem Solving , Choice Behavior , Diagnosis , Humans , Prejudice
18.
J Med Philos ; 33(4): 302-20, 2008 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18662947

ABSTRACT

Epistemic trust is an unacknowledged feature of medical knowledge. Claims of medical knowledge made by physicians, patients, and others require epistemic trust. And yet, it would be foolish to define all epistemic trust as epistemically responsible. Accordingly, I use a routine example in medical practice (a diagnostic test) to illustrate how epistemically responsible trust in medicine is trust in epistemically responsible individuals. I go on to illustrate how certain areas of current medical practice of medicine fall short of adequately distinguishing reliable and unreliable processes because of a failure to systematically evaluate health outcomes. I conclude by articulating the devastating obstacles to the consilience assumption, which takes intellectual character (rather than reliable belief-forming processes) as the standard for epistemic responsibility.


Subject(s)
Philosophy, Medical , Trust , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Judgment , Physician-Patient Relations , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
20.
Virtual Mentor ; 10(8): 527-30, 2008 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23211086
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...