Growing ties to private industry have prompted many to question the impartiality of academic bioethicists who receive financial support from for-profit corporations in exchange for ethics-related services and research. To the extent that corporate sponsors may view bioethics as little more than a way to strengthen public relations or avoid potential controversy, close ties to industry may pose serious threats to professional independence. New sources of support from private industry may also divert bioethicists from pursuing topics of greater social importance, (...) such as the needs of medically underserved communities. To inform ongoing debates about the financing of bioethics and its transparency to those concerned about potential sources of bias, we examined funding disclosures appearing in original research reports in major bioethics journals. Reviewing research published over a 15-year period, we found little evidence that for-profit corporations are influencing bioethics research directly. Instead, we found evidence that a great number of organizations, both public and private, support bioethics research. These findings suggest that worries about the cooption of bioethics research by a few interested stakeholders are greatly overstated and undersupported by available data. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore briefly the "secular priesthood" metaphor often applied to bioethicists. I next ask: if, despite our discomfort with the metaphor, we were to embrace the best aspects of the priesthood(s) ? which I identify as the missionaries' willingness to work among sinners and lepers, at their own peril ? would we be able to live up to that standard of bravery? I then draw a parallel with the fears of contagion currently be voiced (by Carl Elliott (...) and others), with regard to bioethicists working in or near corporate settings. I argue that such fears may themselves have a number of deleterious effects, and I suggest several possible positive steps in response to that fear. (shrink)

Objectives: The objective of this research is to analyse the evolution and nature of published empirical research in the fields of medical ethics and bioethics.Design: Retrospective quantitative study of nine peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics and medical ethics .Results: In total, 4029 articles published between 1990 and 2003 were retrieved from the journals studied. Over this period, 435 studies used an empirical design. The highest percentage of empirical research articles appeared in Nursing Ethics , followed by the (...) Journal of Medical Ethics and the Journal of Clinical Ethics . These three journals account for 84.1% of all empirical research in bioethics published in this period. The results of the χ2 test for two independent samples for the entire dataset indicate that the period 1997–2003 presented a higher number of empirical studies than did the period 1990–1996 . This increase is statistically significant . Most empirical studies employed a quantitative paradigm . The main topic of research was prolongation of life and euthanasia .Conclusions: We conclude that the proportion of empirical research in the nine journals increased steadily from 5.4% in 1990 to 15.4% in 2003. It is likely that the importance of empirical methods in medical ethics and bioethics will continue to increase. (shrink)

v. 1. Editorial introduction -- v. 2. The English and Latin texts (i) -- v. 3. The English and Latin texts (ii).

Introduction: making the invisible visible -- The nobility of the material -- Research at war -- The guilded age of research -- The doctor as whistle-blower -- New rules for the laboratory -- Bedside ethics -- The doctor as stranger -- Life through death -- Commissioning ethics -- No one to trust -- New rules for the bedside -- Epilogue: The price of success.

Background The increase in empirical methods of research in bioethics over the last two decades is typically perceived as a welcomed broadening of the discipline, with increased integration of social and life scientists into the field and ethics consultants into the clinical setting, however it also represents a loss of confidence in the typical normative and analytic methods of bioethics. Discussion The recent incipiency of "Evidence-Based Ethics" attests to this phenomenon and should be rejected as a solution to the current (...) ambivalence toward the normative resolution of moral problems in a pluralistic society. While "evidence-based" is typically read in medicine and other life and social sciences as the empirically-adequate standard of reasonable practice and a means for increasing certainty, I propose that the evidence-based movement in fact gains consensus by displacing normative discourse with aggregate or statistically-derived empirical evidence as the "bottom line". Therefore, along with wavering on the fact/value distinction, evidence-based ethics threatens bioethics' normative mandate. The appeal of the evidence-based approach is that it offers a means of negotiating the demands of moral pluralism. Rather than appealing to explicit values that are likely not shared by all, "the evidence" is proposed to adjudicate between competing claims. Quantified measures are notably more "neutral" and democratic than liberal markers like "species normal functioning". Yet the positivist notion that claims stand or fall in light of the evidence is untenable; furthermore, the legacy of positivism entails the quieting of empirically non-verifiable considerations like moral claims and judgments. As a result, evidence-based ethics proposes to operate with the implicit normativity that accompanies the production and presentation of all biomedical and scientific facts unchecked. Summary The "empirical turn" in bioethics signals a need for reconsideration of the methods used for moral evaluation and resolution, however the options should not include obscuring normative content by seemingly neutral technical measure. (shrink)

As in science, so in bioethics: if prohibiting conflicts of interest is not feasible, rigorous requirements for disclosure can at least manage them.

On the usual account of moral reasoning, social science is often seen as able to provide “just the facts,” while philosophy attends to moral values and conceptual clarity and builds formally valid arguments. Yet disciplines are informed by epistemic values—and bioethics might do well to see social scientific practices and their attendant normative understandings about what is humanly important as a significant part of ethics generally.

A theoretical platform for a much‐needed change in the provision of healthcare based on restoring the autonomy of doctor–patient relationships.

Bioethicists recognize the conflicts of interest that can arise for clinicians and scientists. However, few scholars exploring the moral dimensions of medicine and the sciences publicly address potential conflicts of interest concerning their own research. Increasingly, however, bioethicists will be confronted with difficult choices in which opportunities to obtain funding will sometimes conflict with the pursuit of critical, rigorous scholarship conducted without regard for corporate interests.

Bioethical arguments conceal the coercion underlying the choice between poverty and selling ones organsIn mid-May 2006, three Palestinian prisoners detained in Israel applied to the Israeli Prison Service for permission to sell their kidneys in order to send money to their children for food. Whether truly sincere or merely propagandistic, the request was made against the background of Israel’s decision to suspend the transfer of Palestinian tax moneys to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and the subsequent increasing poverty and famine in (...) the Gaza Strip.1An official decision was yet to be made when this paper was written. However, the IPS chief medical officer had already made it clear that the request is likely to be rejected. Aside from emphasising that the cost of the pertinent treatment of the prisoners could not be imposed on the IPS, especially as it would greatly exceed the sum to be obtained by the sellers , he asserted that the IPS “won’t lend a hand to endangering the prisoner”. He also reiterated the official IPS policy, according to which the prisoners’ consent to such transaction could not be valid, since they might have been threatened by people from inside or outside the prison.1This is ironic. While the IPS’ professed concerns for the welfare and best interests of the prisoners are commendable, they conceal and hence reaffirm the real coercion implicit in the dilemma the prisoners face: to sell their kidney or let their children starve. Interestingly, approval of their request would have equally concealed the coercion, this time behind concerns for either their autonomy, or the welfare of their children, or both.At present, it is unlikely that Israel will acknowledge the role of national oppression and poverty in producing this dilemma. Rather, the debate will remain focused on …. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper explores one of the most politically sensitive and intellectually neglected issues in bioethics – the interface between the history of contemporary end‐of‐life ethics and the economics of life and death. It suggests that contrary to general belief, economic impulses have increasingly become part of the conditions in which contemporary end‐of‐life ethics continues to evolve. Although this conclusion does not refute the philosophical justifications provided by the ethics for itself, it may cast new light upon its social role.