Breaking Binaries: The Critical Need for Feminist Bioethics in Pediatric Gender-Affirming Care.

This commentary responds to Moti Gorin's article "What Is the Aim of Pediatric 'Gender-Affirming' Care?" We argue that Gorin's case against pediatric gender-affirming care rests upon numerous false conceptual binaries: female/male, public/private, objective/subjective, and medically necessary/elective. Drawing on feminist bioethics, we show how such dichotomous thinking is both inaccurate and marginalizing of gender minorities.

Advocacy and Bioethics: Aspiration, Obligation, and Negotiation.

AbstractA long-standing tenet of healthcare clinical ethics consultation has involved the neutrality of the ethicist. However, recent pressing societal issues have challenged this viewpoint. Perhaps now more than ever before, ethicists are being called upon to take up roles in public health, policy, and other community-oriented endeavors. In this article, I first review the concept of professional advocacy and contrast this conceptualization with the role of patient advocate, utilizing the profession of nursing as an exemplar. Then, I explore the status of advocacy in clinical ethics and how this conversation intersects with the existing professional obligations of the bioethicist, arguing that the goals of ethics consultation and ethical obligations of the clinical ethicist are compatible with the role of professional advocate. Finally, I explore potential barriers to professional advocacy and offer suggestions for a path forward.

A preliminary epistemological ″human ecology″ framework for understanding the limits of bioethics.

This article tries to set up the epistemological bases of the science of ″human ecology″. This term has started to be used as a synonymous of morality, especially in the Catholic moral social doctrine that used for the first time to justify its marriage prospectives. We look at both terms together (human plus ecology) and we propose that human ecology should be a discipline that in the first time study human behavior and population (objective) using the postulates of the science of ecology (method) and then, once a conceptual framework for social sciences disciplines such as bioethics can be settle, could be used as a way to support or not moral postulates in the name of ecology. We conclude by defining which should be the methods of knowledge acquisition, the limits and the validity of what should be considered ″Human ecology″, that is to say, the ecology of the humans.

Assessment of knowledge and self-efficacy among health professionals and clinical scientists following the Cameroon HIV/AIDS Research Forum (CAM-HERO 2022) research methodology and bioethics training.

To inform public health policymakers that the generation of local evidence-based knowledge is key. Research capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to generate medical knowledge is often weak and insufficiently resourced and efforts to tackle these challenges are not standardized. Continuous research training can equip researchers with the required knowledge and research skills, but its effectiveness largely depends on the quality and pertinence of the training methods used. We aim to assess the effectiveness of the Cameroon HIV/AIDS Research Forum (CAM-HERO) 2022 Research Methodology and Bioethics Training with the objective to describe the knowledge gained and the self-efficacy of health professionals and clinical scientists. A survey was conducted during the one-day training among health professionals and clinical scientists. Participants took an online self-administered questionnaire before and after the training related to the topics taught. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: 1) 18 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) to assess knowledge and 2) Nine items to evaluate self-efficacy using a five-point Likert scale. Mean scores were calculated, analysed, and compared using paired t-test for the pre- and post-test results. A total of 30 participants (57% women) completed the socio-demographic form. The median age (IQR) of participants was 33.5 (13.3) years. We registered 38 respondents for the pre-test and 33 respondents for the post-test. There was a rise in knowledge mean score from 13.0 to 14.8 (p=0.001) and an improvement in the perception of self-efficacy with a mean score increase from 2.9 to 3.7 (p < 0.001). Knowledge and perception of self-efficacy on research methodology improved among participants after the training. These results suggest that the CAM-HERO 2022 training had an immediate positive impact on skills and self-efficacy. Hence, we recommend the implementation of this training on a larger scale, periodically, and with long-term follow-up to evaluate its impact.

Respect for bioethical principles and human rights in prisons: a systematic review on the state of the art.

BACKGROUND: Respect for human rights and bioethical principles in prisons is a crucial aspect of society and is proportional to the well-being of the general population. To date, these ethical principles have been lacking in prisons and prisoners are victims of abuse with strong repercussions on their physical and mental health. METHODS: A systematic review was performed, through a MESH of the following words (bioethics) AND (prison), (ethics) AND (prison), (bioethics) AND (jail), (ethics) AND (jail), (bioethics) AND (penitentiary), (ethics) AND (penitentiary), (prison) AND (human rights). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and after PRISMA, 17 articles were included in the systematic review. RESULTS: Of the 17 articles, most were prevalence studies (n.5) or surveys (n.4), followed by cross-sectional studies (n.3), qualitative studies (n.1), retrospective (n.1) and an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study design (n.1). In most cases, the studies associated bioethics with prisoners' access to treatment for various pathologies such as vaccinations, tuberculosis, hepatitis, HIV, it was also found that bioethics in prisons was related to the mental health of prisoners, disability, ageing, the condition of women, the risk of suicide or with the request for end-of-life by prisoners. The results showed shortcomings in the system of maintaining bioethical principles and respect for human rights. CONCLUSIONS: Prisoners, in fact, find it difficult to access care, and have an increased risk of suicide and disability. Furthermore, they are often used as improper organ donors and have constrained autonomy that also compromises their willingness to have end-of-life treatments. In conclusion, prison staff (doctors, nurses, warders, managers) must undergo continuous refresher courses to ensure compliance with ethical principles and human rights in prisons.

The concept of intersectionality in bioethics: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Intersectionality is a concept that originated in Black feminist movements in the US-American context of the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the work of feminist scholar and lawyer Kimberlé W. Crenshaw. Intersectional approaches aim to highlight the interconnectedness of gender and sexuality with other social categories, such as race, class, age, and ability to look at how individuals are discriminated against and privileged in institutions and societal power structures. Intersectionality is a "traveling concept", which also made its way into bioethical research. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to answer the question of where and how the concept of intersectionality is applied in bioethical research. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched and 192 articles addressing bioethical topics and intersectionality were finally included. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis resulted in a category system with five main categories: (1) application purpose and function, (2) social dimensions, (3) levels, (4) health-care disciplines and academic fields, and (5) challenges, limitations, and critique. The variety of academic fields and health-care disciplines working with the concept ranges from psychology, through gynaecology to palliative care and deaf studies. Important functions that the concept of intersectionality fulfils in bioethical research are making inequities visible, creating better health data collections and embracing self-reflection. Intersectionality is also a critical praxis and fits neatly into the overarching goal of bioethics to work toward social justice in health care. Intersectionality aims at making research results relevant for respective communities and patients, and informs the development of policies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review is, to the best of our knowledge, the first one to provide a full overview of the reference to intersectionality in bioethical scholarship. It creates a basis for future research that applies intersectionality as a theoretical and methodical tool for analysing bioethical questions.

Integrating Public Health Ethics into Public Health Policymaking: Being in the Room Where It Happens.

This commentary takes up a challenge posed by Franklin Miller in a 2022 essay in Bioethics Forum. Dr. Miller queried whether bioethicists could be useful in public health policy contexts and while he refrained from issuing an ultimate opinion, did identify several challenges to such utility. The current piece responds to the challenges Dr. Miller identifies and argues that with appropriate training, public health ethicists can be of service in virtually any context in which public health policies are deliberated and decided.

Autonomy-based bioethics and vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic: towards an African relational approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provoked new interest in the notion of vulnerability and in identifying alternative approaches for responding to vulnerable patients and populations during health emergencies. In this paper, I argue that the autonomy-based approach (the most dominant approach in bioethics) to responding to vulnerability during health emergencies is deficient because it focuses only on the interests, values, and decisions of the individual patient. It overly emphasizes respect for autonomy and not respect for the patient as it does not consider the patient as a social and relational agent. Indeed, relational approaches to autonomy like the feminist and indigenous sub-Saharan African ethical approaches are promising alternatives. In this essay, I use the indigenous African relational approach to autonomy as an example of an alternative method which can be used to respond to vulnerability during a global health emergency like COVID-19.

Uptown Squirrel Does Not Eat That.

This essay plays out a few ethics reasons we have to reconsider what's really being marketed to us in some free offers that distract us from questions of ethical, cultural, and clinical importance, for example. Possible points of focus for bioethics as a field are related to antimicrobial resistance and stewardship.

Additional Steps for Maintaining Public Trust in the FDA.

This letter responds to the essay "Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines," by Leah Z. Rand, Daniel P. Carpenter, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Anushka Bhaskar, Jonathan J. Darrow, and William B. Feldman, in the special report "Time to Rebuild: Essays on Trust in Health Care and Science," in the September-October 2023 issue of the Hastings Center Report.

The obligation of the physician to save the life of the detainee on a hunger strike: the opinion of the Italian National Bioethics Committee.

Abstract: The Cospito case has highlighted a widely debated bioethical issue regarding the need to choose between safeguarding the life of a detainee and their right to self-determination through the practice of a hunger strike. Recently, the Italian National Bioethics Committee has been called upon to give an opinion on this matter. On the other hand, the media resonance of this case has shed light on the need to pose an ethical and social question regarding such situations: does the physician have an obligation to protect the detainee's health at the expense of their free choice? To be able to answer, it is necessary to understand whether law no. 219/17 is applicable to this context.

Might the bioethical principle of individual decisional autonomy have a politically liberalizing effect on soft authoritarian communities?

According to the bioethical principle of individual decisional autonomy, the patient has a right of informed consent to any medical or experimental procedure. The principle is politically liberal by advocating significant individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by civil liberties. When practiced in illiberal communities, might it have a political liberalizing effect? I respond first by analyzing cross-national norms of individual decisional autonomy to identify tensions with illiberal community; second, by examining examining Singapore in a single case study to show that liberal bioethics does not promote political liberalization; and third, by showing that the possibility of practicing liberal bioethics in research, clinically as well as in education, does not require a democratic order, and that liberal bioethics is unlikely to encourage the liberalization of illiberal political communities. Hence, it may never contribute to the development of globally effective cross-national norms for the legal regulation of bioethical research and clinical practice. Fourth, to bolster this analysis, I anticipate several possible objections to various of its aspects.

Bios-Ethics and the Bios Emergency: Finding the Real Work.

This article presents a case for transforming traditional bioethics into "Bios-ethics." This exposition relies on three propositions: (1) the climate emergency is the "Bios emergency"; (2) in the Bios emergency, bioethics must be replaced by Bios-ethics; and (3) the top and overwhelming priority of Bios-ethics is to address the Bios emergency. Biocentrism, habitat, and environmental ethics are discussed in light of their contribution to the development of Bios-ethics, and potential lines of research in Bios-ethics are outlined. The urgency of undertaking substantive conceptual and practical innovations in response to our current danger is emphasized throughout.

Does Bioethics Need Ethical Theories?

The relationship between philosophy and bioethics remains a matter of perennial debate, but there does appear to be a consensus on one issue: whatever bioethics might want to borrow from philosophical ethics, it won't be normative theories. This essay argues that theories can have an important role to play in bioethics, though it might not be the one traditionally assumed by philosophers.

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research.

BACKGROUND: The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. METHODS: The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was "Ethics of AI in Global Health Research". The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022. RESULTS: We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.