The COVID-19 pandemic will generate vexing ethical issues for the foreseeable future and many journals will be open to content that is relevant to our collective effort to meet this challenge. While the pandemic is clearly the critical issue of the moment, it’s important that other issues in medical ethics continue to be addressed as well. As can be seen in this issue, the Journal of Medical Ethics will uphold its commitment to publishing high quality papers on the full array (...) of medical ethics. At the same time, JME aims to be a premiere home for ground-breaking scholarship on the ethical issues raised by COVID-19. Toward this end, we have a number of papers that are freely available online and for which production has been fast-tracked.1–5 A challenge for authors who want to write about the pandemic is the rapidly evolving nature of the situation and the time it takes for journal content to be reviewed and published, even when fast-tracked. For that reason, all authors who would like to submit a paper on the pandemic can also submit a post to the JME blog prior to submitting a full paper to the journal. Those interested in writing for the JME blog should contact one of its editors, Hazem Zohny or Mike King. Over the last 3 weeks, 30 high-quality commentaries on the pandemic have been posted to the blog. These posts are circulated widely via the JME Twitter and Facebook feeds and have stimulated significant …. (shrink)

When explaining the inadequacy of the words “Cheer him up” to describe the purpose of offering a drink to a murderer, TS Elliot’s Sweeney remarks, > Well here again that don’t apply > > But I’ve gotta use words when I talk to you.1 The importance of words to medical ethics cannot be denied. While a narrow view of conceptual analysis is not conducive to good medical ethics,2 the adequacy and clarity of the words we use continues to be the (...) foundation for all ethical analysis. While some key ideas such as ‘paternalism’3 or ‘coercion’4 are well theorised and tend to be used in a consistent way that most understand, other words that are important to ethics, often are not. Our ability to notice, perceive and understand ethical issues is the starting point for all ethical inquiry. The ethical words we choose structure and give content to our ethical perception. As Kant observed, ‘Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are …. (shrink)

Scholarly inquiry into medical ethics should inform and guide those involved in making challenging ethical decisions.1 It should strive to be integral to the work of health care professionals and health care institutions2 and clinical relevance seems essential for this to happen. To acknowledge the importance of clinical relevance for medical ethics, the Journal of Medical Ethics has introduced a regular Clinical Ethics section at the beginning of each issue. Papers that we think are likely to be of particular interest (...) and relevance to clinicians will be placed in this section of the journal. One way in which a paper can be framed for a more clinical audience is by organising it around a scenario that healthcare professions might face. The paper published in this issue’s Clinical Ethics section considers a dilemma about whether an egg donor should be contacted to help diagnose a condition that the resulting child might have.3 While egg donation has become more common, the complexities presented by this scenario might appear removed from those which most health professionals face. However, the way in which genomics is becoming incorporated into healthcare means that the issues this scenario raises are relevant to all healthcare professionals. The spread of genomics into practice means that the …. (shrink)

Chinese authors are the third most frequent submitters to the JME. However, as will be apparent from the content published in the journal, relatively fewer papers from China are accepted. That is not due to a lack of important scholarship in China. We recently contributed to a highly successful conference with Professor Xiaomei Zhai at Peking Union Medical College, Beijing and were impressed by the increasing awareness, analysis and progress of medical ethics in China, including in the area of organ (...) transplantation. However, few of these presentations make it into print. It is therefore important to make the criteria that inform editorial judgements as transparent as possible. There are several reasons why the acceptance rates for the JME are higher in some countries than others. Some of them are related to different views about what constitutes medical ethics or research. In some contexts, articles are not recognised as research unless they are empirical and the bulk of papers submitted from some countries have no ethical argument. Philosophical traditions vary across countries and papers that are primarily exegetical, in the sense that they describe what a famous philosopher would say about an issue, usually do not make it into the JME. There are other journals that accommodate different views about what counts as research or ethics, so authors should match their papers to the content that a journal publishes. However, academic journals can be opaque about how authors should pitch their papers so as to maximise their chances of publication. …. (shrink)

Drawing on the views of donors and recipients about anonymity in a country that is experiencing a transition towards non-anonymous gamete donation mandated by the Constitutional Court, we explore how the intersection between rights-based approaches and an empirical framework enhances recommendations for ethical policy and healthcare. Between July 2017 and April 2018, 69 donors and 147 recipients, recruited at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes, participated in this cross-sectional study. Position towards anonymity was assessed through an open-ended question in a (...) self-report questionnaire, which was subject to content analysis. Preference for an anonymous donation regime was mentioned by 82.6% of donors and 89.8% of recipients; and all those with children. Instead of the rights-based reasoning used by the Constitutional Court, donors highlighted concerns over future relationships and recipients focused on socioethical values linked with the safeguard of safety, privacy and confidentiality. The remaining participants advocated the choice between anonymity or non-anonymity, invoking respect for their autonomy. The complex, diverse ethical views and reasoning of donors and recipients expand a traditionally dichotomous discussion. Their perspectives challenge the transition towards non-anonymity and international guidelines, raising awareness to the need for their involvement in the design of policies to enable choice according to their values and preferences, and of psychosocial counselling responsive to their socioethical concerns and sensitive to their parental status. Empirical frameworks complement rights-based approaches to uphold justice, fairness and equal respect, and to incorporate utility, beneficence and non-maleficence in policymaking and healthcare in the transition towards non-anonymity. (shrink)