According to the Daily Mail yesterday scientists have found that giving cows individual names boosts milk yields. This extravagant and utterly unsubstantiated claim has been repeated in numerous places including the BBC and Scientific American (who should know better).
Read More »Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. Does it matter if I give a name to you?
In an opinion piece on the BBC website this week Professor Simon Baron-Cohen has questioned the wisdom of adopting pre-natal screening for autism, raising the possibility that it would prevent the existence of future great mathematicians. This is a variant of a common objection to pre-natal testing or to genetic enhancement.
Read More »The Lost Genius objection to pre-natal testing for autism
A 79 year old euthanasia campaigner in New Zealand has attracted local and international publicity after having the words ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ tattooed across her chest. Although this seems unlikely to be widely emulated her action highlights the problem that at the time when it might be most important to make one’s views known, patients are often unconscious or incompetent.
Read More »Tattoos and taboos: making end of life preferences known when it matters
In a paper published in the Lancet yesterday, a group of WHO scientists
have suggested that a radical change to HIV testing would be necessary
to combat the epidemic. The authors published details of a mathematical
model of “universal voluntary testing” and early drug treatment of all
those found to have HIV in a country with HIV levels similar to those
present in Southern Africa. They present striking and provocative
evidence that this approach could reduce dramatically the incidence and
mortality from HIV within a fairly short period. The major ethical
question raised in response to their proposal is whether such a
strategy would violate the rights of individuals, and impose harms on
them in order to secure greater benefits for others.
Read More »Universal AIDS testing: should we save the many at the cost of harm to the few?
Yesterday the UK organ donation taskforce released its report on a
presumed consent (opt-out) system for organ donation. To the
consternation of the chief medical officer and the Prime Minister the
taskforce advised against the introduction into the UK of such a system.
In an editorial in today’s Guardian, it was observed that both the low
rates of consent in the UK – and the taskforce’s response to the
question of presumed consent may represent an irrational preference for
the default position. They may both be examples of the status quo bias.
Read More »Status quo bias and presumed consent for organ donation
A teenager who is a Jehovah’s witness declines a potentially
life-saving blood transfusion. Another teenager, self-conscious and
strongly believing that it will make her happier, requests a boob job.
When minors make decisions that may be against their own best interests, should we respect their decisions?
The health secretary announced today that patients in the UK who choose to buy medicines not funded by the national health service, will no longer be excluded from receiving public health care. This announcement follows controversy about expensive cancer drugs that are available in other countries, but may not be available under the NHS.
Given that private healthcare is available in the UK (and overseas) for those who are able to pay for it, it seems unreasonable to punish patients who choose to spend their money on cancer drugs by denying them access to the public health system for part of their care. (See here, and here for previous blogs on this topic).
Read More »Top hats and top-ups: better health for the better off
In Australian newspapers today a Melbourne intensive care physician,
Jim Tibballs is reported as criticising current organ donation
guidelines on the grounds that donors are not actually dead at the time
that organs are removed. Other doctors have called Professor Tibballs’
comments “irresponsible” on the grounds that they might cause a
significant fall in organ donation rates.
According to a report in the Guardian today, premature babies in the UK
are being put at risk because of a shortage of suitably qualified
staff. It is usual in newborn intensive care units in the UK for nurses
to have to look after more than one baby at a time. There is usually
one nurse per two sick babies, whereas in adult or paediatric intensive
care there is almost always one nurse per patient. This is contrary to
the recommendations of British specialists in newborn intensive care.
In the Australian state of Victoria next week a proposal to make abortion legal in certain
circumstances is due to be voted on by the upper house. Some doctors,
as well as the Catholic church, have attacked one clause in that
legislation, as it is said to deny doctors the right to conscientiously
object to abortion. But what is the proper role of the doctor’s
conscience in medical care, and how should it be taken into account
when it conflicts with the conscience of the patient?
Read More »Refusing to refer: thus conscience doth make cowards of us all
