[New disputes and interventions in the female body: divisions between gynecology and plastic surgery]. / Novas disputas e intervenções no corpo feminino: fronteiras entre ginecologia e cirurgia plástica.

This article analyzes the tensions and disputes between the fields of gynecology and esthetic plastic surgery, the specialties which are authorized to perform aesthetic female genital surgeries in Brazil. Documentary materials are used, including scientific articles from the 1990s onward and institutional websites. While gynecologists have remained more cautious, recommending the surgery only for functional reasons, plastic surgeons have been more influential in publicizing these procedures and emphasizing the aesthetic dimension. Beyond professional disputes, we debate whether this phenomenon needs to be understood in light of the growing emphasis on self-improvement via biomedical resources and gender imperatives.

Este artigo analisa tensões e disputas entre o campo da ginecologia e da cirurgia plástica estética, especialidades autorizadas a realizar a cirurgia estética genital feminina no Brasil. Utiliza material documental, incluindo artigos científicos desde a década de 1990, e sites institucionais. Enquanto ginecologistas têm se mantido mais cautelosos com a prática, defendendo sua realização apenas quando há indicações funcionais, cirurgiões/ãs plásticos/as têm sido mais influentes na disseminação do procedimento, privilegiando a dimensão estética. Argumenta-se que, para além de disputas entre campos profissionais, esse fenômeno precisa ser entendido à luz da crescente ênfase no aprimoramento de si, via recursos biomédicos, e dos imperativos de gênero.

Three Arguments Against Institutional Conscientious Objection, and Why They Are (Metaphysically) Unconvincing.

The past decade has seen a burgeoning of scholarly interest in conscientious objection in healthcare. While the literature to date has focused primarily on individual healthcare practitioners who object to participation in morally controversial procedures, in this article we consider a different albeit related issue, namely, whether publicly funded healthcare institutions should be required to provide morally controversial services such as abortions, emergency contraception, voluntary sterilizations, and voluntary euthanasia. Substantive debates about institutional responsibility have remained largely at the level of first-order ethical debate over medical practices which institutions have refused to offer; in this article, we argue that more fundamental questions about the metaphysics of institutions provide a neglected avenue for understanding the basis of institutional conscientious objection. To do so, we articulate a metaphysical model of institutional conscience, and consider three well-known arguments for undermining institutional conscientious objection in light of this model. We show how our metaphysical analysis of institutions creates difficulties for justifying sanctions on institutions that conscientiously object. Thus, we argue, questions about the metaphysics of institutions are deserving of serious attention from both critics and defenders of institutional conscientious objection.

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

Risk management and empirical study of the doctor-patient relationship: based on 1790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes in China.

BACKGROUND: Compensation for medical damage liability disputes (CMDLD) seriously hinders the healthy development of hospitals and undermines the harmony of the doctor-patient relationships (DPR). Risk management in the DPR has become an urgent issue of the day. The study aims to provide a comprehensive description of CMDLD in China and explore its influencing factors, and make corresponding recommendations for the management of risks in the DPR. METHODS: This study extracted data from the China Judgment Online - the official judicial search website with the most comprehensive coverage. Statistical analysis of 1,790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes (COMDLD) available from 2015 to 2021. RESULTS: COMDLD generally tended to increase with the year and was unevenly distributed by regions; the compensation rate was 52.46%, the median compensation was 134,900 yuan and the maximum was 2,234,666 yuan; the results of the single factor analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the compensation for different years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures (P < 0.05); the correlation analysis showed that types of hospitals were significantly negatively associated with regions (R=-0.082, P < 0.05); trial procedures were significantly negatively correlated with years (R=-0.484, P < 0.001); compensat- ion was significantly positively correlated with years, regions, and treatment attributes (R = 0.098-0.294, P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with trial procedures (R=-0.090, P < 0.01); regression analysis showed that years, treatment attributes, and regions were the main factors affecting the CMDLD (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures affect the outcome of CMDLD. This paper further puts forward relevant suggestions and countermeasures for the governance of doctor-patient risks based on the empirical results. Including rational allocation of medical resources to narrow the differences between regions; promoting the expansion and sinking of high-quality resources to improve the level of medical services in hospitals at all levels; and developing a third-party negotiation mechanism for medical disputes to reduce the cost of medical litigation.

Disagreement Gets Mistaken for Bad Listening.

It is important for people to feel listened to in professional and personal communications, and yet they can feel unheard even when others have listened well. We propose that this feeling may arise because speakers conflate agreement with listening quality. In 11 studies (N = 3,396 adults), we held constant or manipulated a listener's objective listening behaviors, manipulating only after the conversation whether the listener agreed with the speaker. Across various topics, mediums (e.g., video, chat), and cues of objective listening quality, speakers consistently perceived disagreeing listeners as worse listeners. This effect persisted after controlling for other positive impressions of the listener (e.g., likability). This effect seemed to emerge because speakers believe their views are correct, leading them to infer that a disagreeing listener must not have been listening very well. Indeed, it may be prohibitively difficult for someone to simultaneously convey that they disagree and that they were listening.

Portable devices for diagnosis and monitoring of glaucoma: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. The need to diagnose glaucoma early in its natural history before extensive sight loss occurs cannot be overemphasised. However, glaucoma is largely asymptomatic in the early stages of the disease making it complex to diagnose clinically and requires the support of technology. The objective of this scoping review is to determine the nature and extent of the evidence for use of portable devices in the diagnosis of glaucoma. METHODS: We will consider studies conducted in all healthcare settings using portable devices for the detection of all type of adult glaucoma. We will also include any systematic reviews or scoping reviews, which relate to this topic. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL on the Cochrane Library and Global Health databases, from their inception to the present. Reference lists from publications identified in the searches will also be reviewed. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts, followed by full-text screening to assess studies for inclusion. Any disagreements will be discussed and resolved with a third author. Tables accompanied by narrative descriptions will be employed to discuss results and show how it relates to review questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required in this review. Only published and publicly accessible data will be used. We will publish our findings in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and develop an accessible summary of results and recommendations.

What's Wrong with Restrictivism?

Emily Carroll and Parker Crutchfield propose a new inconsistency argument against abortion restrictivism. In response, I raised several objections to their argument. Recently Carroll and Crutchfield have replied and seem to be under the impression that I'm a restrictivist. This is puzzling, since my criticism of their view included a very thinly veiled, but purposely more charitable, anti-restrictivist inconsistency argument. In this response, I explain how Carroll and Crutchfield mischaracterize my position and that of the restrictivist.

Ontological pluralism and social values.

There seems to be an emerging consensus among many philosophers of science that non-epistemic values ought to play a role in the process of scientific reasoning itself. Recently, a number of philosophers have focused on the role of values in scientific classification or taxonomy. Their claim is that a choice of ontology or taxonomic scheme can only be made, or should only be made, by appealing to non-epistemic or social values. In this paper, I take on this "argument from ontological choice," claiming that it equivocates on the notion of choice. An ontological choice can be understood either in terms of determining which taxonomic scheme is valid, or in terms of deciding which taxonomic scheme to deploy in a given context. I try to show that while the latter can be determined in part by social values, the former ought not to be so determined.