Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals.

The purpose of this article is to show that animal rights are not necessarily at odds with the use of animals for research. If animals hold basic moral rights similar to those of humans, then we should consequently extend the ethical requirements guiding research with humans to research with animals. The article spells out how this can be done in practice by applying the seven requirements for ethical research with humans proposed by Ezekiel Emanuel, David Wendler, and Christine Grady to animal research. These requirements are (1) social value, (2) scientific validity, (3) independent review, (4) fair subject selection, (5) favorable risk-benefit ratio, (6) informed consent, and (7) respect for research subjects. In practice, this means that we must reform the practice of animal research to make it more similar to research with humans, rather than completely abolish the former. Indeed, if we ban animal research altogether, then we would also deprive animals of its potential benefits-which would be ethically problematic.

Fleshing out vulnerability.

In the literature on medical ethics, it is generally admitted that vulnerable persons or groups deserve special attention, care or protection. One can define vulnerable persons as those having a greater likelihood of being wronged - that is, of being denied adequate satisfaction of certain legitimate claims. The conjunction of these two points entails what we call the Special Protection Thesis. It asserts that persons with a greater likelihood of being denied adequate satisfaction of their legitimate claims deserve special attention, care or protection. Such a thesis remains vague, however, as long as we do not know what legitimate claims are. This article aims at dispelling this vagueness by exploring what claims we have in relation to health care - thus fleshing out a claim-based conception of vulnerability. We argue that the Special Protection Thesis must be enriched as follows: If individual or group X has a greater likelihood of being denied adequate satisfaction of some of their legitimate claims to (i) physical integrity, (ii) autonomy, (iii) freedom, (iv) social provision, (v) impartial quality of government, (vi) social bases of self-respect or (vii) communal belonging, then X deserves special attention, care or protection. With this improved understanding of vulnerability, vulnerability talk in healthcare ethics can escape vagueness and serve as an adequate basis for practice.

Resolving the conflict: clarifying 'vulnerability' in health care ethics.

Vulnerability has been extensively discussed in medical research, but less so in health care. Thus, who the vulnerable in this domain are still remains an open question. One difficulty in their identification is due to the general criticism that vulnerability is not a property of only some, but rather of everyone. By presenting a philosophical analysis of the conditions of vulnerability ascription, we show that these seemingly irreconcilable understandings of vulnerability are not contradictory. Rather, they are interdependent: they refer to the same concept with different likelihoods of manifestation. We argue that the general vulnerability of living beings relies on their having certain types of interests. In health care, those individuals are particularly vulnerable who are more likely to have these interests unjustly considered. They should be afforded special protection in order to receive what is due to everyone, but which they are likely to fail to receive.

Dose Responses of Ibuprofen In Vitro on Platelet Aggregation and Coagulation in Human and Pig Blood Samples.

INTRODUCTION: Ibuprofen is commonly used by warfighters in the deployed environment. This study investigated its dose effects on in vitro coagulation in human and pig blood. METHODS: Blood samples were collected from 6 normal volunteers and 6 healthy pigs and processed to make platelet-adjusted samples (100 × 10(3)/µL, common transfusion trigger in trauma). Ibuprofen was added to the samples at concentrations of 0 µg/mL (control), the concentration from the highest recommended oral dose (163 µg/mL, 1×), and 2×, 4×, 8×, 10×, 12×, 16×, and 20×. Platelet aggregation by Chrono-Log aggregometer and coagulation by rotational thrombelastogram (Rotem) were assessed at 15 minutes after the addition of ibuprofen. RESULTS: A robust inhibition of ibuprofen on arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation was observed at all doses tested in human or pig blood. Collagen-stimulated platelet aggregation was inhibited starting at 1× in human blood and 4× in pig blood. Rotem measurements were similarly compromised in pig and human blood starting at 16×, except clot formation time was prolonged at 1× in human blood (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Ibuprofen inhibited platelet aggregation at recommended doses, and compromised coagulation at higher doses. Human blood was more sensitive to ibuprofen inhibition. Further effort is needed to investigate ibuprofen dose responses on coagulation in vivo.