This article presents a critique of the health promotion policy of Japan, which is based on an examination of the social importance of and justification for health promotion. This is done to suggest the proper direction that the future Japanese policy could take, and to question the adequacy of the term of ‘health promotion’. We find the ‘social progress’ characterization of the ‘Second Term of National Health Promotion Movement in the Twenty-First Century - Health Japan 21 ’ to be problematic. (...) While there are clear restraints found in terms of social costs related to the policy, the aims toward social justice provided by the policy are not clear. Considering the social importance and justification of health promotion, and the present conditions seen in Japan, we believe that it is necessary clearly to position health promotion as a form of social justice. Having said this, the term ‘health promotion’ is in itself misleading and can belie the range of activities required to action these policies. Therefore, we propose considering the selection of a different and more appropriate term for health promotion that concretely defines policies that actively work toward definitive health equity. (shrink)

Digital Pills are an innovative drug-device technology that permits to combine traditional medications with a monitoring system that automatically records data about medication adherence as well as patients’ physiological data. Although DP are a promising innovation in the field of digital medicine, their use has also raised a number of ethical concerns. These ethical concerns, however, have been expressed principally from a theoretical perspective, whereas an ethical analysis with a more empirically oriented approach is lacking. There is also a lack (...) of clarity about the empirical evidence available concerning the application of this innovative digital medicine. To map the studies where DP have been tested on patients and discuss the ethically relevant issues evident therein, we performed a scoping review of the empirical literature concerning DP. Our search allowed us to identify 18 papers reporting on studies where DP were tested on patients. These included studies with different designs and involving patients with a variety of conditions. In the empirical literature, a number of issues with ethical relevance were evident. At the patient level, the ethical issues include users’ interaction with DP, personal sphere, health-related risks and patients’ benefits. At the provider level, ethically relevant issues touch upon the doctor-patient relationship and the question of data access. At the societal level, they concern the benefits to society, the quality of evidence and the dichotomy device-medicine. We conclude that evidence concerning DP is not robust and that more research should be performed and study results made available to evaluate this digital medicine. Moreover, our analysis of the ethically relevant aspects within empirical literature underscores that there are concrete and specific open questions that should be tackled in the ethical discussion about this new technological solution. (shrink)

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self‐directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that (...) discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered.In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct‐to‐consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole‐exome or whole‐genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed.In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome‐wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome‐wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome‐wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. By Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 7, Page 57-59, July 2011.

Unfit for the Future argues that the future of our species depends on radical enhancement of the moral aspects of our nature. Population growth and technological advances are threatening to undermine the conditions of worthwhile life on earth forever. We need to modify the biological bases of human motivation to deal with this challenge.

In medical ethics, an appropriate national healthcare system that meets the requirements of justice in healthcare resource allocation is a major concern. Japan is no exception to this trend, and the pros and cons of introducing a two-tier healthcare system, which permits insured medical care services to be provided along with services not covered by social health insurance, have been the subject of debate for many years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that it was valid for the government to (...) ban mixing medical treatments and both the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and Japanese Medical Association oppose the introduction of such a system. In this paper, we examine the main arguments against the introduction of a two-tier healthcare system and ideas that form their basis, which can be broadly divided into opinions based on the importance of equality and those derived from the logical conclusion that the outcomes would be detrimental. We point out issues and shortcomings of each standpoint and argue that the introduction of the system would not necessarily threaten equality and social solidarity in Japanese society, and that abuses of a self-pay tier would be controllable to a certain extent. Then, the authors—who do not actively promote the introduction of a two-tier healthcare system—conclude that the allegation that is completely devoted to one side and the theory that social healthcare is collapsing, which makes the public excessively nervous, cannot be accepted. (shrink)

Over the course of its first seven editions, Principles of Biomedical Ethics has proved to be, globally, the most widely used, authored work in biomedical ethics. It is unique in being a book in bioethics used in numerous disciplines for purposes of instruction in bioethics. Its framework of moral principles is authoritative for many professional associations and biomedical institutions-for instruction in both clinical ethics and research ethics. It has been widely used in several disciplines for purposes of teaching in the (...) classroom, during conferences, etc. (shrink)

Background: The introduction of healthcare AI to society as well as the clinical setting will improve individual health statuses and increase the possible medical choices. AI can be, however, regarded as a double-edged sword that might cause medically and socially undesirable situations. In this paper, we attempt to predict several negative situations that may be faced by healthcare professionals, patients and citizens in the healthcare setting, and our society as a whole. Discussion: We would argue that physicians abuse healthcare AI (...) through their excessive and dependent use of it, and they will focus only on the AI services in their office and patient medical data and information, and forget to observe the patient in their clinical encounters. In the era of AI introduction, data from the wearable terminal or AI advice will become the primary target of the physician’s interest, and could be regarded as a patient surrogate. Paternalism would be paradoxically resurrected by the introduction of state-of-the-art AI. A physician’s conflict of interest related to AI as a commercial product could strongly influence his or her actions in clinical settings. We also worry that the general public will become uneasy and hypersensitive slaves to information, compulsively and uninterruptedly requesting healthcare information concerning their own health and advice from AI. An AI system capable of expressing proper and timely empathy to suffering patients could deprive healthcare professionals of their roles in terms of hospitality and emotional exchange. Finally, entire societies would soon share and consolidate healthcare sensitive information from all in the general public as part of a totalitarian healthcontrolled society where individual privacy and personal secrets could be neglected. The advent of the healthcontrolled society could lead to the metamorphosis of the concept of privacy itself into something completely different. Conclusion: Although AI which surpasses human healthcare professionals may never appear, hoping for the best and preparing for the worst is the best approach to take. To this end, we present some potential countermeasures including conducting clinical research and social investigations concerning problems surrounding the introduction of AI and developing guidelines for its appropriate use. (shrink)

The writer commences:—“There was a time, when the earth was to all appearance utterly destitute both of animal and vegetable life, and when according to the opinion of our best philosophers it was simply a hot round ball with a crust gradually cooling. Now if a human being had existed while the earth was in this state and had been allowed to see it as though it were some other world with which he had no concern, and if at the (...) same time he were entirely ignorant of all physical science, would he not have pronounced it impossible that creatures possessed of anything like consciousness should be evolved from the seeming cinder which he was beholding? Would he not have denied that it contained any potentiality of consciousness? Yet in the course of time consciousness came. Is it not possible then that there may be even yet new channels dug out for consciousness, though we can detect no signs of them at present? (shrink)

Like all scientific innovations, nutrigenomics develops through a constant interplay with society. Normative assumptions, embedded in the way researchers formulate strands of nutrigenomics research, affect this interplay. These assumptions may influence norms and values on food and health in our society. To discuss the possible pros and cons of a society with nutrigenomics, we need to reflect ethically on assumptions rooted in nutrigenomics research. To begin with, we analysed a set of scientific journal articles and explicated three normative assumptions embedded (...) in the present nutrigenomics research. First, values regarding food are exclusively explained in terms of disease prevention. Health is therefore a state preceding a sum of possible diseases. Second, it is assumed that health should be explained as an interaction between food and genes. Health is minimised to quantifiable health risks and disease prevention through food¿gene interactions. The third assumption is that disease prevention by minimisation of risks is in the hands of the individual and that personal risks, revealed either through tests or belonging to a risk group, will play a large role in disease prevention. Together, these assumptions suggest that the good life is equated with a healthy life. Our thesis is that these three normative assumptions of nutrigenomics may strengthen the concerns related to healthism, health anxiety, time frames and individual responsibilities for health. We reflect on these ethical issues by confronting them in a thought experiment with alternative, philosophical, views of the good life. (shrink)