For Faster Science: Accelerated Genetic Engineering.

While acknowledging that there are many risks associated with genetic engineering, this article asserts that delaying the research and development of genetic engineering has high human costs. Genetic engineering could prevent millions of premature deaths, eliminate the suffering associated with many diseases and conditions, and save millions of family members from the anguish of watching their loved ones suffer and die from genetic conditions. Societal deliberations on the topic of genetic engineering have existed for decades, and a majority of people now support genetic interventions. Highly legitimate social justice issues can be addressed without holding advances in science hostage.

Commentary on "Pandemics and Beyond: Considerations When Personal Risk and Professional Obligations Converge".

The excellent article by Daniel J. Benedetti, Mithya Lewis-Newby, Joan S. Roberts, and Douglas S. Diekema draws strength by dealing both with micro ethical (personal) and macro ethical (institutional policies and structures) considerations. One should further note that often, the macro factors are even stronger than the article implies, although individuals can affect the macro context. A particularly important macro factor for all matters concerning healthcare, indeed all human services, is the tension between the profit motive and ethical decisions.

Micro and Macro Ethical Considerations of COVID-19.

Micro decisions, made by individuals, during a health crisis in which healthcare resources are particularly in short supply, should not be based only on the age of the patients. Ameliorate  care is only appreciated  when the patient has a limited time to live, whatever their age. Macro decisions concern public policy. We must decide now who will pay for the vaccines, who will get them before others, whether minorities should be granted priority, and whether the United States should join a global distribution system.

On a communitarian approach to bioethics.

A communitarian approach to bioethics adds a core value to a field that is often more concerned with considerations of individual autonomy. Some interpretations of liberalism put the needs of the patient over those of the community; authoritarian communitarianism privileges the needs of society over those of the patient. Responsive communitarianism's main starting point is that we face two conflicting core values, autonomy and the common good, and that neither should be a priori privileged, and that we have principles and procedures that can be used to work out this conflict but not to eliminate it. This discussion uses the debate in the US over funding for entitlements as a case study to apply the values of communitarian bioethics.

Authoritarian versus responsive communitarian bioethics.

A communitarian approach to bioethics adds a core value to a field that is often more concerned with considerations of individual autonomy. Some interpretations of liberalism put the needs of the patient over those of the community; authoritarian communitarianism privileges the needs of society over those of the patient. Responsive communitarianism's main starting point is that we face two conflicting core values, autonomy and the common good, and that neither should be a priori privileged and that we have principles and procedure that can be used to work out this conflict but not to eliminate it. Additionally, it favours changing behaviour mainly through the creation of norms and by drawing on informal social control rather than by coercion.

Organ donation: a communitarian approach.

Recently, various suggestions have been made to respond to the increasingly great shortage of organs by paying for them. Because of the undesirable side effects of such approaches (commodification, injustice, and costs), a communitarian approach should be tried first. A communitarian approach to the problem of organ shortage entails changing the moral culture so that members of society will recognize that donating one's organs, once they are no longer of use to the donor, is the moral (right) thing to do. This approach requires much greater and deeper efforts than sharing information and making public service announcements. It entails a moral dialogue, in which the public is engaged, leading to a change in what people expect from one another. Among the devices that could help change the moral culture are a public statement, endorsed by community members and leaders, that expresses the community sense that donation "is what a good person does" and a community-specific web page that lists those who have made the commitment. A change in law so that a person's wishes in the matter are recognized as final and binding are also desired. This position paper deals only with cadaver organs and not living donors.

Public health law: a communitarian perspective.

American society has often favored individual rights disproportionately over the common good. In the aftermath of September 11, there is a need to readjust our criteria to allow for the strengthening of security, public safety, and public health policies. At the same time, we must assure that liberties are not trampled in the service of the common good. Clear criteria are needed to help determine when the proper balance has been reached. Although we should not expect that every public health policy will affect all members of society in exactly the same way, thought must be given to ways of compensating groups that are burdened more than others by a policy.