Neurotechnological cognitive enhancement has become an area of intense scientific, policy, and ethical interest. However, while work has increasingly focused on ethical views of the general public, less studied are those with personal connections to cognitive impairment. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed attitudes regarding implantable neurotechnological cognitive enhancement in individuals who self-identified as having increased likelihood of developing dementia (n = 25; ‘Our Study’), compared to a nationally representative sample of Americans (n = 4726; ‘Pew Study’). Participants in Our (...) Study were additionally shown four videos showcasing hypothetical neurotechnological devices designed to enhance different cognitive abilities and were interviewed for more in-depth responses. Both groups expressed comparable degrees of worry and acknowledgement of potential ethical ramifications (all _ps_ > _0.05_). Compared to the Pew Study, participants in Our Study expressed slightly higher desire (_p_. (shrink)

Through users’ cross-system comparative experience engaging with the health systems in Taiwan and other countries, this article probes into their understandings and value judgments and specifically their reasonings for the ‘solidarity with whom?’ question in the health sector solidarity. With the cross-system comparison approach, the study adopted semi-structured interviews with 30 Taiwanese participants who have studied, lived or worked abroad and engaged with the health system in Canada, the USA or the UK. This approach offers the opportunity for one to (...) evaluate the health system in the home country from a relative viewpoint from the host country. The participants suggested that the boundary of Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) should be as inclusive as possible, covering all legal residents in Taiwan regardless of their status, and that the citizens should share more financial responsibility. The ethical reasons for supporting the NHI include recognizing health sector solidarity among people, considering the coverage as a protection of the human right to health, humanitarian reasons and self-interest. Three archetypes of users emerged from the synthesis: Universalists, Rationalists and Republicans. The cross-system comparative experience makes the participants have more supportive attitudes toward the ideals of health sector solidarity. (shrink)

BackgroundEuthanasia is performed on occasion, even on newborns, but is highly controversial, and it is prohibited by law and condemned by medical ethics in most countries.AimTo characterise and compare the judgments of lay persons, nurses, and physicians of the acceptability of actively ending the life of a damaged newborn.MethodsConvenience samples of 237 lay persons, 214 nurses, and 76 physicians in the south of France rated the acceptability on a scale of 0–10 of giving a lethal injection in 54 scenarios composed (...) of all combinations of 4 within-subject factors: gestational age of 6,7, or 9 months; 3 levels of severity of either perinatal asphyxia or of genetic disease; attitude of the parents about prolonging care unknown, favourable, or unfavourable; and decision made individually by the physician or collectively by the medical team. Overall ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and each cluster to analysis of variance and graphic representation.ResultsLay persons (mean acceptability rating 4.29) were significantly more favourable to euthanasia than nurses (2.84), p<.005, or physicians (2.12), p<.005. Five clusters were found with different judgment rules, i.e., how the information was integrated. More physicians (30 per cent) than nurses (14 per cent), p<.01, or lay persons (11 percent), p<.01, rated euthanasia as never, under any condition, acceptable. Most, however, asserted that it was increasingly acceptable as the factors combined to favour it, especially when the parents desired to stop treatment. More physicians (45 per cent) and nurses (46 per cent) than lay persons (21 per cent), p<.01, used a complex conjunctive rule (level of parent’s attitude x level of severity of damage x consultation with team or not) rather than a simple additive rule.ConclusionsUnlike lawand medical ethics, most of the lay persons. nurses, and physicians judged the acceptability of euthanasia as a function of the circumstances. Most health professionals combined the factors in a conjunctive (multiplicative), rather than additive, fashion in accordance with legislation for adults in the Netherlands and elsewhere that requires a set of criteria to be fulfilled before it is legitimate to end apatient’s life. (shrink)

Labiaplasty is a form of genital surgery to reduce large or protruding labia minora. Internationally, the rates of this surgery among women and girls is increasing and is viewed as a worrying trend. Currently, the main clinical strategy is to reassure adolescents that they are normal by talking about the variation of labia size and appearance and showing pictures demonstrating the wide range of normal female genital appearance. For the most part, policy documents recommend against labiaplasty in adolescents, claiming that (...) it is medically non-essential surgery. In this paper, we contrast findings from our interviews with clinicians with the existing literature and policy documents and we point out areas needing more thought. This is qualitative research using semi-structured interviews. We set out to find out on what basis clinicians decide how to treat or manage adolescent patients seeking labiaplasty. We interviewed clinicians who are likely to be approached by under-eighteens requesting labiaplasty. We use interpretive content analysis and thematic analysis to analyse the data. Our findings support the emphasis on education and reassurance as the first step for all patients, but other issues that have not figured previously in the literature that would alter clinical strategies for managing patients emerge as well. Key findings are that reassurance does not always work and that the distinction between functional and appearance concerns is not a solid foundation in itself for deciding whether surgery is ethically appropriate. We conclude that the distinction between functional and appearance concerns is not ethically relevant. It is open to different interpretations and is not regarded by all clinicians as the definitive factor in relation to surgery. The focus of clinicians should be on relieving distress whatever the cause. Appearance reasons may sometimes justify surgery but, also, functional reasons may sometimes not be sufficient justification for surgery. (shrink)

Aim To explore the views in non-Western cultures about ending the lives of damaged newborns.Method 254 university students from India and 150 from Kuwait rated the acceptability of ending the lives of newborns with genetic defects in 54 vignettes consisting of all combinations of four factors: gestational age ; severity of genetic defect ; the parents’ attitude about prolonging care ; and the procedure used .Results Four clusters were identified by cluster analysis and subjected to analysis of variance. Cluster I, (...) labelled ‘Never Acceptable’, included 4% of the Indians and 59% of the Kuwaitis. Cluster II, ‘No Firm Opinion’, had little variation in rating from one scenario to the next; it included 38% of the Indians and 18% of the Kuwaitis. In Cluster III, ‘Parents’ Attitude+Severity+Procedure’, all three factors affected the ratings; it was composed of 18% of the Indians and 16% of the Kuwaitis. Cluster IV was called ‘Severity+Parents’ Attitude’ because these had the strongest impact; it was composed of 40% of the Indians and 7% of the Kuwaitis.Conclusions In accordance with the teachings of Islam versus Hinduism, Kuwaiti students were more likely to oppose ending a newborn's life under all conditions, Indian students more likely to favour it and to judge its acceptability in light of the different circumstances. (shrink)

Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) research involves the infection of otherwise healthy participants with disease often for the sake of vaccine development. The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the urgency of enhancing CHIM research capability and the importance of having clear ethical guidance for their conduct. The payment of CHIM participants is a controversial issue involving stakeholders across ethics, medicine and policymaking with allegations circulating suggesting exploitation, coercion and other violations of ethical principles. There are multiple approaches to payment: reimbursement, wage (...) payment and unlimited payment. We introduce a new Payment for Risk Model, which involves paying for time, pain and inconvenience and for risk associated with participation. We give philosophical arguments based on utility, fairness and avoidance of exploitation to support this. We also examine a cross-section of the UK public and CHIM experts. We found that CHIM participants are currently paid variable amounts. A representative sample of the UK public believes CHIM participants should be paid approximately triple the UK minimum wage and should be paid for the risk they endure throughout participation. CHIM experts believe CHIM participants should be paid more than double the UK minimum wage but are divided on the payment for risk. The Payment for Risk Model allows risk and pain to be accounted for in payment and could be used to determine ethically justifiable payment for CHIM participants.Although many research guidelines warn against paying large amounts or paying for risk, our empirical findings provide empirical support to the growing number of ethical arguments challenging this status quo. We close by suggesting two ways (value of statistical life or consistency with risk in other employment) by which payment for risk could be calculated. (shrink)