A new test for carriers of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is under development, but it raises an ethical problem: should we test for untreatable deadly illnesses? And might it reduce the amount of blood donations?
Read More »Finding holes in the brain: to test or not to test for Creutzfeldt-Jakob?
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.
Do players in online games have a right to their virtual possessions? As discussed by Erin Hoffman in an essay the matter is a legal quagmire. Real money is involved, people have assaulted each other over virtual thefts, China now recognizes people’s right to their virtual property
while the US does not. As virtual worlds become ever bigger business
the legal issues surrounding virtual property will become more important – both directly in court, and indirectly in shaping what kinds of worlds will be profitable or even possible. But from an ethical standpoint, do we have a right to virtual property?
Read More »Protectionist deities vs. the economy of fun: ownership of virtual possessions
The BBC reports today
that increasing numbers of people are using prescription drugs like Ritalin—intended
as a treatment for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD)—to boost alertness and brain power. Reports of the increasing popularity of ‘smart
drugs’ are synonymous with concerns about cheating (see here, here, and here):
surely, the worry runs, taking drugs that help you do well at college is
equivalent to bribing your examiners into awarding you high marks? Those who take cognitive enhancement drugs,
just like those who bribe their examiners, are better placed to beat their
peers in the competition for the best educational qualifications and jobs, and
so cognitive enhancement is unfair. In
this case, shouldn’t cognitive enhancement be banned in schools and colleges?
Read More »Why the cheating objection to smart drugs doesn’t work
Last week the US congress agreed to a US$7 billion bail-out for the banking sector. This Tuesday, the UK government followed suit with its own bail-out – though with some fairly serious strings attached. In the US case in particular, there was some strong public opposition to the bail-out, with many people claiming that bankers should be made to feel the consequences of their own bad decisions. In response, those who favoured the bail-out tended to make one or both of two main responses. First, they claimed that the bail-out would make everyone better off, and/or second, they implied that the feelings of resentment which many harbour towards bankers are not really the sort of consideration on which economic policy should be based.
According to professor Steve Jones human evolution is grinding to a halt. The reason is, at least in the developed world, we have so good living standards and hence low mortality that we are not suffering any selection. He also argues that the mutation rate has been reduced because changes in reproduction and the larger gene pool. He concludes: "So, if you are worried about what utopia is going to be like, don’t;
at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, you
are living in it now." As I see it, he has a very modest view of utopia. More seriously, do we have some kind of obligation to evolve?
Ben Goldacre (who seems to be one of this blog’s favorite
sources) tears into the Durham fish oil trial.
to test whether giving omega-3 supplements would improve the GCSE scores of
children. Unfortunately there were clear problems with the trial design. In the
face of criticism the organisations involved refused to give out information on
the experimental setup and even claimed not to be running it as a trial (despite numerous statements to the
press). GCSE scores did not generally increase. Despite this, now positive results are claimed – largely because what is measured has been changed to suit
the data. The most vexing thing about the whole affair is that the
trial could have been done in a proper manner for the same amount of money.
Read More »The price of ignorance: the Durham study and research ethics
78th Philosophers’ Carnival
Victorian politicians are debating how to reform law on abortion. In Victoria, as in other states, abortion remains a crime. This is inconsistent with what happens. There are nearly 100 000 abortions every year in Australia.
The Victorian government will decide between 2 Models. According to Model B, abortion will be available on request until 24 weeks of pregnancy, but after that point 2 doctors must agree that it is indicated. Doctors who fail to comply with the law would receive professional and other sanctions. On Model C, abortion is available on request all through pregnancy. Premier Brumby and a majority of politicians support Model B.
Why is the imposition of sanctions on doctors who provide abortions so attractive? Firstly, abortion is an undesirable means of birth control. Most people would prefer to find other ways of not having unwanted children. Secondly, many people believe that as the fetus grows, and looks more like a baby, its moral status increases. After 24 weeks, some fetuses are even capable of living in intensive care units, outside the womb, as extremely premature newborns.
Despite its superficial attractiveness, Model B is deeply morally flawed. According to Model B, the moral status of the fetus, and whether it is kept alive or aborted, depends on the judgement of 2 doctors. Their decisions will usually be based on whether there is a disease or disability present. But this implies that fetuses with disabilities have less of a right to life than those which do not have disabilities. This is discrimination against the disabled and those with diseases. We would not allow 2 doctors to kill a child just because it had spina bifida. Why would we think the presence of spina bifida should change the moral standing of a fetus? Doctors can withdraw medical treatment leading to the deaths of their patients, but only when the patient’s life is no longer worth living. This is not the case in virtually all abortions.
