Informed consent is a central topic in contemporary biomedical ethics. Yet attempts to set defensible and feasible standards for consenting have led to persistent difficulties. In Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics Neil Manson and Onora O'Neill set debates about informed consent in medicine and research in a fresh light. They show why informed consent cannot be fully specific or fully explicit, and why more specific consent is not always ethically better. They argue that consent needs distinctive communicative transactions, by which (...) other obligations, prohibitions, and rights can be waived or set aside in controlled and specific ways. Their book offers a coherent, wide-ranging and practical account of the role of consent in biomedicine which will be valuable to readers working in a range of areas in bioethics, medicine and law. (shrink)

This article considers the nature of Mr Burke's concerns in bringing his action and the practical implications of similar situations. When artificial nutrition and hydration is provided, practical issues arise regarding future, potentially long-term care. This in turn raises concerns about place of care, provision of carers and funding, which may not easily be resolved. The GMC guidance exists to provide direction and help for practitioners when difficult decisions have to be made about future treatment with the intention that the (...) patients' wishes and benefit of any potential treatment will be central to the discussions. Nevertheless, the reality of having these conversations, raising emotive issues with the patient and/or carers, and the implications of the final decision, may be very different in practice. (shrink)

The decline in the interest in ethical theory is first outlined, as a background to the author’s discussion of principlism. The author’s own stance, that of a communitarian philosopher, is then described, before the subject of principlism itself is addressed. Two problems stand in the way of the author’s embracing principlism: its individualistic bias and its capacity to block substantive ethical inquiry. The more serious problem the author finds to be its blocking function. Discussing the four scenarios the author finds (...) that the utility of principlism is shown in the two scenarios about Jehovah’s Witnesses but that when it comes to selling kidneys for transplantation and germline enhancement, principlism is of little help. (shrink)