This Dictionary presents a broad range of topics relevant in present-day global bioethics. With more than 500 entries, this dictionary covers organizations working in the field of global bioethics, international documents concerning bioethics, personalities that have played a role in the development of global bioethics, as well as specific topics in the field.The book is not only useful for students and professionals in global health activities, but can also serve as a basic tool that (...) explains relevant ethical notions and terms. The dictionary furthers the ideals of cosmopolitanism: solidarity, equality, respect for difference and concern with what human beings- and specifically patients - have in common, regardless of their backgrounds, hometowns, religions, gender, etc. Global problems such as pandemic diseases, disasters, lack of care and medication, homelessness and displacement call for global responses.This book demonstrates that a moral vision of global health is necessary and it helps to quickly understand the basic ideas of global bioethics. (shrink)

Reflected in the more than three thousand entries in this reference work is the rigorous professional training and the maturity of a lifetime of learning by an eminent scholar. Through judicious selection, Professor MacGregor has produced an essential and highly accessible reference book While no dictionary can pretend to cover every conceivable aspect within its field, the scope of this one makes it a unique desk companion for students at every level of religious studies. In addition to its extensive (...) presentation of religious and philosophical ideas of the Judeo-Christian heritage, the Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy also treats vast numbers of concepts that span philosophical and religious ideas from Egyptian and Indian antiquity to the Bogomils and the Druze, from the Zoroastrians to contemporary movements as diverse as scientology and the Rastafarians, from Neoplatonism to the Vienna circle, from the varieties of Buddhism to the schisms in Islam, from bioethical questions in ancient India to contemporary American discussions on euthanasia. All told, this is the most expansive one-volume desk reference work available for religious studies. Extensive bibliographies, organized by subject at the end of the book further its value as a reference work. (shrink)

This second edition of Historical Dictionary of Medical Ethics contains a chronology, an introduction, and an extensive bibliography. The dictionary section has over 1,000 cross-referenced entries on ethical reasoning and its key components; medical ethics, professional medical ethics, and bioethics; and topics in clinical ethics.

This reference provides a complete overview of ethics through a detailed chronology, an introductory essay, a bibliography, and over 200 cross-referenced dictionary entries, including bioethics, business ethics, Aristotle, Hobbes, autonomy, confidentiality, Confucius, and psychology.

A dictionary definition of Bioethics is, 'the ethics, or moral principles and rules of conduct, of medical and biological research'. This book is an introductory text of just biological and not medical bioethics. It covers the ethics of experimentation, including genetic manipulation, in plants and animals; ethics and biodiversity, ethics and the environment. There is increasing interest in bioethics - both in academia and by the media and the general public. Awareness of bioethics is incorporated (...) into Biological / Environmental Science courses, plus the first dedicated modular courses on bioethics are starting up. Includes case studies Has questions for students Chapters include environmental, animal, agricultural and reproductive ethics as well as a wide range of issues regarding genetic manipulation. (shrink)

With a “big tent” understanding of bioethics, this dictionary provides definitions of 755 important terms drawn from a wide variety of contexts: medicine, nursing, behavioral health, forensic science, research ethics, public safety, social work, and epidemiology, on the one hand; bioethics, ethics, law, history, philosophy, and theology, on the other. Bioethical approaches and ethical categories are given their due, as are the major theoretical orientations. Terms from outside the USA, especially the UK, are in evidence. Many Greek (...) and a few Latin equivalents are provided; for example, “cloning.” Cross references abound. That’s Part 1. Part 2 offers single-paragraph introductions, 95 in all, to Historical Figures from a number of fields: medicine and nursing, dentistry and pharmacy, certainly; but there are also philosophers, scientists, environmentalists, public health pioneers, noteworthy psychologists and psychiatrists—along with many others. The religions are not neglected: important Christian thinkers are represented along with nine famous clinicians from the Islamic Golden Age. This resource offers the definitions of important terms and the identifications of historical figures that everyone interested in bioethics should have access to. (shrink)

A -/- abortion and infanticide/ academic freedom/ academics/ action/ act-omission doctrine/ addiction and dependence/ adoption/ advertising/ affirmative action/ age of consent/ age of criminal responsibility/ age of majority/ agent/ aggression/ agriculture/ aid, foreign/ AIDS/ air/ akrasia/ allies/ altruism/ American Civil War (1861-1865)/ American exceptionalism/ American War of Independence (1775–1783)/ anarchic social order/ anarcho-capitalism/ anarchy/ animal rights/ animal welfare/ apartheid/ apathy/ appeasement/ apriorism/ aristocracy/ arms trade/ arms race/ artificial intelligence/ arts and sciences/ assassination/ asset stripping/ asylum seekers/ atomism, social/ Austrian School (...) of economics/ authoritarianism/ authority/ autonomy, intellectual/ axis/ -/- B -/- balance of trade/ balance of power (international)/ banking/ bankruptcy, insolvency, and limited liability/ barriers to entry/ begging/ belief/ betting/ big business/ bigotry/ biodiversity/ bioethics/ black market/ blackmail/ blasphemy/ booms and slumps/ borders, political/ boxing and dangerous sports/ boycott/ bribery/ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)/ BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy)/ bureaucracy/ business cycles/ . (shrink)

Clinical bioethics is a practical field of applied ethics that assists health professionals in identifying, analyzing, and resolving ethical issues in clinical practice. The focus is on the application of ethical analysis within clinical settings and on specific patient cases. It can be regarded as a subdiscipline of medical bioethics. An ethics consultation begins with an examination of the practicalities of the case and encounters between patients and healthcare providers. Such a consultation has become a clinical service in (...) many hospitals, especially in the United States and Canada. Consultants come from many different backgrounds such as medicine, nursing, social work, law, and chaplaincy. (shrink)

Bioethics emerged as a new discipline in the 1970s. The term “bioethics” was coined by Potter. Although the same term was also used by the founders of a new institute at Georgetown University in the United States, Potter intended the new discipline to have a broad scope including not only medical but also social and environmental concerns. However, he was disappointed that the subsequent development of bioethics did not go beyond the individual patient perspective.

When bioethics first appeared many practitioners of the new discipline were theologians and religious scholars. The original core of the bioethical literature was produced by philosophers and theologians. Both disciplines were associated with broad and critical perspectives on relevant moral challenges. However, such disciplinary characteristics quickly disappeared when bioethics evolved into a separate area of study with its own professional and disciplinary specifics. Theologians (and philosophers) rapidly morphed into bioethicists distancing themselves from exclusively academic analysis and focusing on (...) practical issues in clinical medicine and research. (shrink)

Bioethics emerged as a new discipline in the 1970s and as a result put the traditional concept of medical ethics under pressure because of three factors. One was increasing criticism of paternalism of the medical professional. The second was the growing power of science and technology that placed moral concerns about life-supporting technologies, dialysis, transplantation, human research, and reproductive technologies high on the public agenda. The third factor was social change in which patients emphasized the importance of their rights (...) over the virtues and duties of physicians. (shrink)

The number of ethics-teaching programs rapidly grew in the early 1970s, primarily in medical schools in the United States. In a relatively short period of time almost all medical schools introduced ethics education. Currently, such schools are required to include bioethics in their curricula to be accredited. Other countries followed this pattern of dissemination. Since then the scope of bioethics education has significantly widened. Ethics-teaching came to be offered not only in undergraduate programs but also in graduate, specialization, (...) and postgraduate education, especially in clinical settings. Bioethics-teaching was furthermore introduced in the professional training programs of other health professions such as nursing and scientific disciplines such as biology, genetics, and life sciences. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Religious Perspectives on Bioethics, Part ILaura Jane Bishop (bio) and Mary Carrington Coutts (bio)This is Part One of a two part Scope Note on Religious Perspectives on Bioethics. Part Two will be published in the December 1994 issue of this Journal. This Scope Note has been organized in alphabetical order by the name of the religious tradition.Contents for Parts 1 and 2Part 1Part 2I.GeneralI.Native AmericanII.African Religious TraditionsReligious (...) TraditionsIII.Bahá'í FaithII.Protestantism—willIV.Buddhism and Confucianisminclude a general sectionV.Eastern Orthodoxyand sections focused onVI.Hinduismspecific denominations.VII.IslamIII.Roman CatholicismVIII.JainismIX.JudaismIntroductionThe many religions of the world bring diverse, and occasionally divergent, attitudes to bioethical issues. These beliefs may guide patients and health care professionals as they seek or provide health care. In an attempt to facilitate understanding of and access to information about these beliefs in our pluralistic and global society, this Scope Note identifies literature by the world's major religious groups on topics relating to bioethics.Topics covered by this Scope Note include general attitudes to health and [End Page 155] health care, the physician-patient relationship, treatment refusal, abortion, contraception, sterilization, reproductive technologies, genetics, mental health, human experimentation, organ transplantation and donation, death, euthanasia, suicide, and prolongation of life. Material was not available on all of these topics for each religion.The literature gathered here represents only a small portion of the available writing on religion and medicine, and is limited to that which comments explicitly on bioethical issues. Some faiths have a rich tradition of writing in bioethics; for others the literature is more limited. Variation in coverage is not intended to indicate the relative importance of a faith, but reflects accessibility and space constraints. Individuals interested in obtaining additional information are encouraged to contact the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature.Specific citations about a region or country were chosen because of the predominance of a religious tradition within the population. In all cases, variation in spelling represents author usage. This Scope Note treats only the literature published in English, and every attempt has been made to identify English language sources for these faiths.It is important to remember that doctrinal and theological differences exist even within the same denomination and that views of individual patients, family members, and health care providers should be sought.Dictionaries and EncyclopediasMelton, J. Gordon, ed. Encyclopedia of American Religions. Fourth edition. Detroit: Gale Research, 1993. 1217 p. Basic information about the history, sacred texts, membership, educational facilities, publications, and North American addresses are provided for 1,730 churches, denominations, sects, and cults. Bibliographies for many faiths supplement this extensive resource.Reich, Warren T., ed. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York: Free Press, Macmillan, 1978. 4 volumes. Articles on all the major religions as they relate to bioethics are included in this highly-regarded encyclopedia. In addition, many of the topical essays feature a section on the views of various faiths on the topic under discussion. For the best use of the Encyclopedia, see the subject index in volume 4. (Note: a revised, second edition is due to be published by Macmillan in late 1994.)GeneralAmerican Psychiatric Association. Committee on Religion and Psychiatry. Guidelines Regarding Possible Conflict Between Psychiatrists' Religious Commitment and Psychiatric Practice. American Journal of Psychiatry 147 (4): 542, April 1990. The American Psychiatric Association recommends that psychiatrists respect their patients' religious beliefs and that they not impose their own [End Page 156] beliefs on their patients.Bankowski, Z., and Bryant, J. H. Health Policy, Ethics and Human Values: Proceedings of the XVIIth CIOMS Round Table Conference, Athens Greece. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, 1985. 336 p. Many sections of this volume address issues where religion impacts health policymaking. Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, and Asia are highlighted for the varied ways in which their religions and cultures are integrated into the provision of health care.Batchelor, Edward, ed. Abortion: The Moral Issues. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1982. 246 p. Batchelor compiles a collection of essays by experts on religious ethics as they relate to abortion. Includes... (shrink)

One of the controversies in global bioethics is whether ethical principles are universally applicable or limited to a specific cultural context. Some anthropological and sociological studies advance the idea that globalization is in fact a form of Westernization. Moral values are dependent on cultures and traditions and hence can only be applied in specific cultural settings. According to this view global bioethics is the imposition of a specific form of local ethics (i.e., ethical principlism as developed in Western (...) countries). (shrink)

After Potter coined the term “bioethics” in 1971 the new discipline rapidly developed. Nevertheless, Potter was disappointed at what he felt was its narrow medical focus. He was dismayed that little attention was given to ecological and social issues. This prompted him in 1988 to introduce the notion of global bioethics in a new effort to broaden the scope of bioethical analysis and discussion. “Global” in this notion means two things: unified or broad, bringing together various concerns, and (...) worldwide or planetary, taking into account planetary problems and solutions—not just local and regional ones. Global bioethics for Potter encompassed not only the ecological and social dimension but also the traditional medical ethical perspective focused on individual patient care. (shrink)

In Potter’s distinction between medical and environmental (or ecological) bioethics the last form of bioethics is concerned with the survival of humanity. It concentrates on responsibilities toward future generations and takes a long-term view associated with the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. The scope of ethics in Potter’s view should be expanded beyond the ethics of individuals. He developed the environmental dimensions of bioethics in which the risk for extinction of humanity was his main concern. Preservation of (...) the biosphere and a healthy environment were necessary to guarantee human survival and future disasters could be avoided only if ethical perspectives changed. Deficient water supplies, toxic waste, pollution, acid rain, and global warming seriously affect human health. (shrink)

When bioethics emerged as a new discipline in the 1970s, it was strongly connected to religion.

Teaching ethics in the clinical setting is a specialized form of bioethics education.

This study aims to understand the semantic specificities of the French lexemes manipuler and modifier in order to shed light on their use in bioethics when they affect an embryo, the brain, DNA, human, what is alive, or procreation. Based on dictionary definitions and responses to a questionnaire submitted to French speakers, and using concepts from various approaches in semantics (combinatorial semantics, argumentative semantics, frame semantics and semantic aspect), the study identifies the meaning elements specific to the two (...) lexemes. These elements are closely linked to the meaning potential of the lexemes and the aspectual features of the processes they designate. At the end of this study, a set of semantic features characteristic of each lexeme is proposed, from a contrastive perspective. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14.4 (2004) 411-425 [Access article in PDF] Vulnerability, Vulnerable Populations, and Policy Mary C. Ruof "Special justification is required for inviting vulnerable individuals to serve as research subjects and, if they are selected, the means of protecting their rights and welfare must be strictly applied."Guideline 13: Research Involving Vulnerable Persons International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects Council for International Organizations of (...) Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and World Health Organization (WHO) Geneva, Switzerland, 2002 Within medical research and healthcare certain groups are afforded special protections and services because of their designation as vulnerable. The vulnerable require special justification to participate in human subject research in order to eliminate potential human rights abuses. The Nuremberg Code of 1947 was written in response to the extreme human subject abuses that occurred under the Nazi regime, and, although the intent of the 1947 Code was to protect human rights, rigid voluntary consent requirements deprived some individuals of the right to participate in clinical trials. Recent human research guidelines, such as the CIOMS/WHO guidelines referenced above and the guidelines referenced in Section V of this Scope Note, attempt to balance both protection from abuse in research and access to new, experimental treatments for the vulnerable.Although various protective guidelines stipulate special protections for vulnerable populations, the concept of vulnerability and consequently the criteria designating vulnerable populations remain vague. Precisely who are the vulnerable? The word "vulnerability" stems from the Latin vulnerare, "to wound." (Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary 1995). In clinical research, the term [End Page 411] vulnerable generally is applied to individuals who are unable to give informed consent or who are susceptible to coercion. The Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) includes as vulnerable research subjects: children, prisoners, pregnant women, and persons who are handicapped, mentally disabled, economically disadvantaged, or educationally disadvantaged. Although the Common Rule specifies certain vulnerable categories, the guidelines were not intended to be exclusive, leaving open the interpretation of vulnerability.In medical research and health policy, vulnerability is an abstract concept that has concrete effects both for those labeled vulnerable and for those not. Clinical researchers, healthcare workers, ethical reviewers, and policymakers must be able to identify vulnerable subjects to establish how healthcare resources will be allocated and who will qualify for special protections and socialized benefits. Attempts to quantify vulnerability in clear, measurable ways have met little if any consensus. As Alexander Morawa (II, 2003, p. 150) states, "There is no single approach to definition of vulnerability. In fact, there is no purposeful categorisation at all."Difficulties in defining vulnerability have prompted discourse surrounding its utility as a qualifying factor in the allocation of health resources and its appropriateness as a guiding principle in bioethics. Some of the authors cited in this Scope Note argue against the labeling and categorization of vulnerable individuals and populations. "Labeling individuals as 'vulnerable' risks viewing vulnerable individuals as 'others' worthy of pity, a view rarely appreciated" (III, Danis and Patrick 2002, p. 320). The categories of vulnerable groups listed under the Common Rule have been the source of controversy, "for example, many find the suggestion that pregnant women are vulnerable to be quite sexist" (IV, DeBruin 2001, p. 7). Instead of creating categories of vulnerable populations, would it not be better to derive an account of just treatment from a just social policy at large that encompasses human vulnerabilities (II, Brock 2002, p. 283).For some of the authors listed here, the concept of vulnerability is essential to bioethics. Robert Goodin (I, 1985, p. 107) writes that the vulnerability of other human beings is the source of our special responsibilities to them. In contrast to the four American principles of biomedical ethics—autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice—the four principles of European bioethics and biolaw include vulnerability along with autonomy, dignity, and integrity. According to, Jacob Dahl Rendtorff and Peter Kemp (I, 2000, p. 274) "the principle of vulnerability is ontologically prior to the other [European] principles, it expresses better than all of the other ethical principles... the finitude of the human condition."Some of the... (shrink)

This chapter considers the prospect of generating human organs within chimeric animals comprised of a mix of human and animal cells. Although seemingly farfetched – the term ‘chimera’ even means, in some modern usage, a “mere wild fancy” or “unfounded conception” (Oxford English Dictionary (n.d.) ‘chimera | chimaera, n.’, OED Online. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/31708) – recent research into interspecies blastocyst complementation is paving the way toward growing human organs inside of human-animal chimeras, potentially within the not-too-distant (...) future Zheng et al. (Development 148(12), 2021). These human-animal chimeras promise important advances within regenerative medicine and medical research. They also raise some profound bioethical issues, which we survey below. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Handbook of Roman Catholic Moral Terms by James T. Bretzke, SJJohn J. FitzgeraldHandbook of Roman Catholic Moral Terms James T. Bretzke, SJ washington, dc: georgetown university press, 2013. 260 pp. $24.95The Handbook of Roman Catholic Moral Terms continues the recent sequence of concise dictionaries published by Georgetown University Press, including the Key Words volumes for various religions and A Handbook of Bioethics Terms. James Bretzke’s contribution is (...) especially welcome as it is the first such English-language reference work in Catholic moral theology since the Second Vatican Council. The author covers fundamental, social, medical, and sexual issues while providing frequent cross-references and further readings. Special attention is also given to scripture and ethics, the history of moral theology, the nature and authority of the Magisterium, canon law, Protestant thought, and moral philosophy. The longest entries are those on dissent (67–70), Humanae vitae (111–16), infallibility (122–24), and the Pontifical Commission on Births (180–82), which in advance of Humanae vitae produced the well-known Majority Report favorable to the use of contraception. The sections on these vexed issues delve into some of the relevant arguments from different sides.Given its space constraints as a portable paperback, the Handbook covers an impressive amount of historical and contemporary ground. The eight-hundred-plus entries are generally clear and irenic, and often illuminating. Consider the page-long entry on just war theory (131–32), which succinctly summarizes its development from Augustine to the present-day Catechism, calls attention to the importance of ius post bellum alongside the traditional categories of ius ad bellum and ius in bello, and outlines four possible critiques of the theory. Particularly helpful throughout are the various examples the author provides. For instance, in the course of explaining that moral norms and human laws may not bind at all times, he suggests that it is justifiable to forgo the duty to sustain life when this can only be done through extraordinary means (140), or to exceed the speed limit in case of a medical emergency (15, 81; see also 183 and 239–40 for other relevant examples).On the other hand, a few key topics are either overlooked or not fully dealt with. This book rightly highlights ecumenical ethics (77–78 and passim), but there is essentially no coverage of Eastern Orthodoxy and very little on pre-twentieth-century Protestant thought. In addition, considering the prevalence of a “morality-of-happiness” perspective in historical and modern-day Catholic thought, and given Bretzke’s own thorough attention to law, the book might have incorporated separate entries on happiness and grace, law’s complement. [End Page 221] (To his credit, he does mention grace several times—a fact that the preface points out—and includes the beatific vision, Gloria Dei vivens homo, and Summum Bonum among his definitions.) And speaking of law, the author’s treatment of the divine law is slightly confusing; he appears to alternately conflate it with and differentiate it from both the eternal law and the law of the Old and New Testaments (70–71, 136, 138).In the end, despite Bretzke’s best efforts to remain above the ideological frays of moral theology, one’s overall evaluation of his book may depend somewhat on one’s place within them. Some will chafe at his suggestions that contraception (116), certain forms of assisted reproduction (198–99), and artificial nutrition and hydration that sustain those in a persistent vegetative state (10, 224–25) remain open questions to an extent. Others will point out, as Bretzke does, that Church doctrine has previously undergone substantial development on other issues, such as religious freedom (65–66, 151, 193, 229) and the charging of interest (107, 241). What most should be able to agree upon is that in many respects the Handbook is a valuable resource, one that will help professionals and students alike come to a much better understanding of the key terms and debates within the field. [End Page 222]John J. FitzgeraldSt. John’s University (New York)Copyright © 2015 Society of Christian Ethics... (shrink)

In the language of secular bioethics, autonomy is always accorded first place in the hierarchy of values that has come to be referred to as the “Georgetown mantra” A dictionary definition of mantra is “a verbal spell, ritualistic incantation, or mystic formula used devotionally,” and the value placed upon autonomy is largely of this nature: uncritical and uncriticised. That there should be and are limits to autonomy is obvious, but these boundaries are undefined, little discussed, and mostly unexplored. (...) To use another metaphor, our emphasis on autonomy is an index of how far the pendulum has swung in an understandable and partly justifiable reaction from, earlier paternalism; has this swing approached its proper limit, and should we be seeking a less extreme and more balanced assessment of autonomy as a bioethical value? (shrink)

Books reviewed in this article: The Bible and Postmodern Imagination: Texts Under Negotiation. By Walter Brueggemann. In the Throe of Wonder: Intimations of the Sacred in a Post‐Modern World. By Jerome A. Miller. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry. By David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume I: Aαρωυ‐Eυωχ. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneiders. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. By E. Randolph Richards. Revelation. By Wilfrid J. Harrington. Conversion to Christianity: Historical (...) and Anthropological Perspectives on a Great Transformation. Edited by Robert W. Hefner. The Metaphor of God Incarnate. By John Hick. Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion. By John Hick. The Nature of God. By Gerard J. Hughes. The Animals Issue: Moral Theoy in Practice. By Peter Carruthers. Philosophy and Theology in the Middle Ages. By G. R. Evans. Modalities in Medieval Philosophy. By Simo Knuuttila. Da Descarres a Spinoza: Percorsi della teologia razionale nel seicento. By Maria Emanuela Scribano. Tra Descartes e Bayle: Poiret e la teodicea. By Gianluca Mori. Kierkegaard and the Limits of the Ethical. By Anthony Rudd. Kierkegaard on Art and Communication. Edited by George Pattison. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan Volume 10: Topics in Education. Edited by Robert M. Doran and Frederick E. Crowe. A Theology of Reconstruction: Nation‐building and Human Rights. By Charles Villa‐Vicencio. Religious Methods and Resources in Bioethics. Edited by Paul F. Camenisch. Theological Developments in Bioethics. Edited by Andrew Lustig et al. Marriage in the Western Church: The Christianization of Marriage During the Patristic and Early Medieval Periods. By Philip L. Reynolds. Marriage in the Early Church. Translated and edited by David G. Hunter. The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. By Thomas F. Mathews. A History of Religion in Britain: Practice and Belief from Pre‐Roman Times to the Present. Edited by Sheridan Gilley and W. J. Sheik. The Conversion of Henri IV: Politics, Power and Religious Belief in Early Modern France. By Michael Wolfe. English Polemics at the Spanish Court: Joseph Creswell's ‘Letter to the Ambassador from England’, The English and the Spanish Texts of 1606. Edited by Albert J. Loomie. (shrink)

In bioethical discourse the term “harm” is often used as the opposite of benefit. Since Hippocratic times a basic ethical principle of medical ethics has been primum non nocere (first do no harm).

Bioethics analysis and debate presupposes the free communication of information. Censorship restricts the freedom to communicate ideas and opinions and should only occur if it can be justified. Several recent cases have made the issue relevant.

Cambridge online dictionary offers the meaning of the noun term “environment” as the air, water, and land in or on which humans, animals, and plants reside1. The environment can also be a mixture of factors that influence both organic and inorganic ecosystems and their shared co- existence. This co-existence is the last idea that is given significance in the sophisticated and busy life styles of the modern day.

Bioethical issues regarding sport are primarily related to doping.

The development of global bioethics has been inspired by the ideals of cosmopolitanism. Such ideals have often been expressed in history (e.g., in Stoic philosophy). They consider each human being as a citizen of his or her own community or state (polis) and at the same time as a citizen of the world (kosmos).

Occupational therapy (OT) is defined as “therapy based on engagement in meaningful activities of daily life (such as self-care skills, education, work, or social interaction), especially to enable or encourage participation in such activities despite impairments or limitations in physical or mental functioning” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

A significant number of students handle personal information (PI) during work-integrated learning and supervised research, requiring compliance with both South African (SA) law and internationally derived research ethics instruments. Where these instruments use different terminology, students face barriers to understanding, reflecting not only linguistic differences but materially distinct legal standards and regulatory consequences. Using the Framework Method across seven analytical dimensions, this study examined the conceptual equivalence of key PI protection terms across four sources: the Oxford English Dictionary, the (...) European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Council for the International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) ethical guidelines for human research, and SA’s Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA). Three findings emerged. First, GDPR’s ‘anonymisation’ and POPIA’s ‘de-identification’, although similar in stated purpose, apply different threshold tests: GDPR uses a probability test (whether re-identification is reasonably likely), while POPIA applies a capacity test (whether re-identification is possible by any reasonably foreseeable method). A data set compliant under GDPR may therefore not satisfy POPIA. Second, the instruments diverge on regulatory scope: GDPR treats anonymisation as an exit from regulation, whereas POPIA imposes ongoing obligations on de-identified data, including an explicit re-identification prohibition absent from GDPR. Third, CIOMS and POPIA are more conceptually compatible with each other than either is with GDPR, yet CIOMS employs GDPR-tradition terminology, creating misleading signals of equivalence for SA students. These divergences reflect fundamentally different conceptions of PI and the rationale for its protection. Students, educators and institutional governance structures must address these distinctions explicitly, rather than assuming terminological equivalence across instruments. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Imaginary Interview*Jillian WeiseQ:Are you disabled?A:It depends. I need context.Q:Are you rendered incapable?A:I am awake and sober.Q:Are you limited by parts of the body?A:My arms are not wings.Q:Are you entitled to certain rights?A:Yes, I am disabled.Q:The U.S. Government disagrees.A:You read the letter?Q:“Due to the subject’s advanced education, the subject is no longer disabled.”1A:It was a love letter. They could have written it better. I would’ve preferred something with a little (...) more feeling, such as: “Dear Jillian: We are breaking up. We saw you outside the building with the statue of the lion. We saw you trespass through the halls and take from the shelves a number of hardbacks and take from the woman with glasses her suggestions. You have been made too erudite, too learned. If you want to protest, if you want to continue our relationship, then un–educate yourself. It would be helpful if you worked at a factory or could not find work. It would be helpful for something inside you to hurt.”Q:You seem bothered by the letter from the government.A:No more bothered, I guess, than if the government sent a letter rescinding my name.Q:The name disability is important to you then?A:It is important. It is very, very important. No, it is not important. I hardly think of it. It vexes me and I need it and I should not say it that often. Today, for example, I said: You must not use the word disability too much in this interview. After all, you do not like the word, and you have named yourself cyborg, so there is no reason to use the word you already rejected. After that thought came the voice of the Director, who said, “When you use the word disability, people think accommodations, people think favors. Best not to use it.” And after that came the voice of a writing mentor: “I just don’t like the word disabled in this piece. Is there a way to write the piece without using the word?”Q:What is disability like?A:It is like crowding under an umbrella, except your head sticks out, and your hair gets wet, and there are no cabs. Plus, this is somebody else’s umbrella.Q:Respond to this symbol.A:That is where I park my car.Q:What do you have?A:I do not know. The doctors named the condition. They gave it a three–word, nine syllable Latin name. Now I go to other doctors and they say, “What do you have?” and I say the Latin name, and they say, “What?” and I repeat the name, and they say, “How do you spell it?” Also—and I think this is important—the prognosis for the condition reads, “No reported cases have survived past the age of two.” Therefore, I am either dead with the condition. Or I am alive with a different one. Or the medical dictionary is fiction.Q:What is the condition?A:I am a cyborg.Q:When did you begin calling yourself a cyborg?A:Rephrase the question. [End Page 219]Q:When did you become a cyborg?A:2007.Q:Where?A:I cannot say the name of the office. The prosthetist posted a photo of me online, and in the photo I am not wearing any pants. I am wearing the cyborg leg for the first time and without any pants. I am so embarrassed. I do not want you to find the photo online. This is before we knew each other. This is before we knew what we meant to each other.Q:I have to tell you: when I first saw you, I thought, “She looks like a woman who could be taken advantage of online.”A:Yes, that is the problem with having it physical. When it is physical, people make all kinds of assumptions. She needs help. She is lop–sided. She must be so, so sad. I thought of another definition: looked at, done to, and dissed... (shrink)

Conflict of interest is a bioethical topic that is receiving rapidly increasing attention. It is an important topic in care, research, and education. It refers to situations where secondary (often financial) interests influence medical/professional judgment and action.

The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR) was unanimously adopted by the member states of UNESCO in October 2005. It is the first international document in the field of bioethics adopted by all governments and as such marks the emergence of global bioethics. Member states entrust the organization with the development of a broad bioethics framework since it succeeded earlier in drafting a document in the specific area of the human genome (see UDHGHR). Several (...) important principles have therefore already been formulated and accepted by the international community. Although the declaration does not define bioethics, it does provide a description of its scope. (shrink)

The American Society of Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) was established in 1998 through a merger of three existing organizations in the United States: the Society for Health and Human Values (SHHV), the Society for Bioethics Consultation, and the American Association of Bioethics. The oldest organization in the field of what later became bioethics was the SHHV, which was founded in 1969 as a professional association of persons committed to human values in medicine. It undertook several initiatives, (...) notably in the field of medical ethics education. (shrink)

Quality of life has become a common factor in discussions today about healthcare and bioethics.

The slippery slope (a course of action that will likely lead to something disastrous) is an argument used in bioethics and many other areas.

To agonise is to undergo great mental anguish through worrying about something, according to the New Oxford Dictionary of English. I suggest that agonising in this sense is a fundamental response to any ethical dilemma. It has a long intellectual and literary lineage. In this essay, I agonise over the dilemmas posed by street beggars, their intrusiveness and their appeal to our intuitive sense of social duty. I explore the discomfort we may feel at their presence, and the value (...) that discomfort may have for the evolution of our ethical lives. (shrink)

Fritz Jahr (1895–1953) was a Protestant pastor and teacher in the city of Halle an der Saale in central Germany. He studied theology, philosophy, music, and history. Jahr published 18 short papers between 1927 and 1934 most of which can be found in the journal Ethik: Sexual- und Gesellschafts-Ethik (Ethics: Sexual and Societal Ethics). In 1927 Jahr published Bio-Ethik: Eine Umschau über die Ethischen Beziehungen des Menschen zu Tier und Pflanze (Bioethics: A Panorama of the Human Being’s Ethical Relations (...) with Animals and Plants) in the magazine Kosmos. (shrink)