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
By Julian Savulescu and Dominic Wilkinson
Imagine you could save 6 lives with a drop of your blood. Would you have a moral obligation to donate a drop of blood to save six people’s lives? It seems that if any sort of moral obligation exists, you have a moral obligation to save six lives with just a pinprick of your blood.
But every day people do far worse than failing to give a drop of blood to save 6 lives. They choose to bury or burn their organs after their death, rather than save 6 lives with these organs. And it would cost them nothing to give those organs after their death. Our failure to give our organs to those who need them is among the greatest moral failures of our lives. At zero cost to themselves, not even having to endure a pinprick, many people choose to destroy their lifesaving organs after their death.
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
The Daily Mail reports this week on a new blood test to detect
conditions such as Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis in fetuses. The
article raises concerns about ‘designer babies’. Yet given the recent
concern about the risk of miscarrying normal fetuses with current
screening procedures for Down syndrome why isn’t the Daily Mail
welcoming these tests?
It has been an extraordinary week in the financial markets of the
world. With the collapse of major international financial institutions,
and governments forced to intervene by propping up ailing insurers or
authorising the merger of banks, newspaper headlines have competed to
convey the scale and significance of the crisis. But there is a
difficult line for newspaper editors and sub-editors to tread between
accurately reflecting the enormity of the market upheavals, and
contributing to the crisis. Should newspapers be censored, or censor
themselves at times of great market sensitivity or do they have a duty
to their readers to speak the truth?
78th Philosophers’ Carnival
In the Observer yesterday, researchers from a major disability charity
have claimed that the risks of screening for Down syndrome during
pregnancy have been underestimated. The researchers suggest that for
every 3 fetuses with Down syndrome that are detected by screening 2
unaffected fetuses miscarry as a complication of the testing process.
Should screening be stopped? If screening continues how should
prospective parents weigh up this risk?
Read More »Testing choices: weighing up risks of death and Down syndrome for fetuses
