The obligation of the physician to save the life of the detainee on a hunger strike: the opinion of the Italian National Bioethics Committee.

Abstract: The Cospito case has highlighted a widely debated bioethical issue regarding the need to choose between safeguarding the life of a detainee and their right to self-determination through the practice of a hunger strike. Recently, the Italian National Bioethics Committee has been called upon to give an opinion on this matter. On the other hand, the media resonance of this case has shed light on the need to pose an ethical and social question regarding such situations: does the physician have an obligation to protect the detainee's health at the expense of their free choice? To be able to answer, it is necessary to understand whether law no. 219/17 is applicable to this context.

Bioethics curriculum for undergraduate medical students: an evaluation study utilizing mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: The undergraduate bioethics curriculum introduced in a private medical college in Pakistan in 1988 and revised in 2009 has evolved over time to incorporate globally relevant innovations, including integration of bioethics spirally within an existing problem-based learning curricular framework. The present evaluation study shares the results of this integrated bioethics curriculum delivered for 10 years across the five-year undergraduate medical curriculum. The study assessed the effectiveness of the curriculum in terms of student achievement, appropriateness of course contents and efficiency of instructional methods. METHODS: The study utilized a mixed method sequential explanatory design. The quantitative method was used in the first phase to gather data by utilizing a structured online questionnaire. This was followed by the second phase of qualitative methods to explain the findings of the first phase and enrich the data gathered. This phase was based on focus group discussions and document review. RESULTS: Student and faculty responses showed the curriculum contents to be relevant, informative, and appropriate as per learning objectives and student achievement. Multi-modal instructional methods used were stated to be effective and engaging; small group teaching and shorter sessions suggested to be preferable for fostering discussion and maintaining student engagement and attention. Large class formats were stated to be less effective. Students affirmed the contribution of bioethics education to their personal and professional development and ethical positioning. The majority of students agreed that the curriculum contributed to their knowledge acquisition (60.3-71.2%), skill development (59.41-60.30%) and demonstration of ethical/professional behavior (62.54-67.65%). The ranges indicate agreement with related sets of questions. Participants suggested that the curriculum could be further strengthened by better integration in clinical years, role modelling and providing opportunities for application in clinical health care settings. Moreover, topics like ethical issues related to the use of social media, public health ethics and ethics and law were suggested as additions to the existing curriculum. These findings have regional and global relevance for the development and assessment of effective bioethics curricula. CONCLUSION: An effective bioethics curriculum for undergraduate medical education should run longitudinally across the 5 year curriculum and be integrated in the modules and clerkships. Basic acquisition of knowledge and skills takes place in Years 1 & 2 with reinforcement and application in Years 3-5. Learning embedded in an integrated curriculum can help students recognize, critically analyze and address ethical dilemmas. Involvement and commitment of the clinical faculty is essential for reinforcing the ethical principles and concepts learnt in the earlier years.

Additional Steps for Maintaining Public Trust in the FDA.

This letter responds to the essay "Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines," by Leah Z. Rand, Daniel P. Carpenter, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Anushka Bhaskar, Jonathan J. Darrow, and William B. Feldman, in the special report "Time to Rebuild: Essays on Trust in Health Care and Science," in the September-October 2023 issue of the Hastings Center Report.

Might the bioethical principle of individual decisional autonomy have a politically liberalizing effect on soft authoritarian communities?

According to the bioethical principle of individual decisional autonomy, the patient has a right of informed consent to any medical or experimental procedure. The principle is politically liberal by advocating significant individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by civil liberties. When practiced in illiberal communities, might it have a political liberalizing effect? I respond first by analyzing cross-national norms of individual decisional autonomy to identify tensions with illiberal community; second, by examining examining Singapore in a single case study to show that liberal bioethics does not promote political liberalization; and third, by showing that the possibility of practicing liberal bioethics in research, clinically as well as in education, does not require a democratic order, and that liberal bioethics is unlikely to encourage the liberalization of illiberal political communities. Hence, it may never contribute to the development of globally effective cross-national norms for the legal regulation of bioethical research and clinical practice. Fourth, to bolster this analysis, I anticipate several possible objections to various of its aspects.

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research.

BACKGROUND: The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. METHODS: The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was "Ethics of AI in Global Health Research". The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022. RESULTS: We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Bios-Ethics and the Bios Emergency: Finding the Real Work.

This article presents a case for transforming traditional bioethics into "Bios-ethics." This exposition relies on three propositions: (1) the climate emergency is the "Bios emergency"; (2) in the Bios emergency, bioethics must be replaced by Bios-ethics; and (3) the top and overwhelming priority of Bios-ethics is to address the Bios emergency. Biocentrism, habitat, and environmental ethics are discussed in light of their contribution to the development of Bios-ethics, and potential lines of research in Bios-ethics are outlined. The urgency of undertaking substantive conceptual and practical innovations in response to our current danger is emphasized throughout.

Does Bioethics Need Ethical Theories?

The relationship between philosophy and bioethics remains a matter of perennial debate, but there does appear to be a consensus on one issue: whatever bioethics might want to borrow from philosophical ethics, it won't be normative theories. This essay argues that theories can have an important role to play in bioethics, though it might not be the one traditionally assumed by philosophers.