RESUMEN
Since its introduction in 1964, the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects has enshrined the importance of safeguarding the well-being of human subjects in clinical research. The Declaration has undergone seven revisions, often in response to requests for clarification. I want to argue that the Declaration is in need of another revision in light of recent discoveries in placebo research.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Declaración de Helsinki , HumanosRESUMEN
Since its initial publication in 2018, Professor Anya Plutynski's Explaining Cancer: Finding Order in Disorder has garnered a great deal of accolades.1 In 2021, The London School of Economics and Political Science conferred Professor Plutynski the Lakatos Award, recognizing the book's significant contribution to the philosophy of science. On the heels of its recent reissuing as a paperback, it is an ideal time to revisit this remarkable work.
RESUMEN
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Medical humanities are becoming increasingly recognized as positively impacting medical education and medical practice. However, the extent of medical humanities teaching in medical schools is largely unknown. We reviewed medical school curricula in Canada, the UK and the US. We also explored the relationship between medical school ranking and the inclusion of medical humanities in the curricula. METHODS: We searched the curriculum websites of all accredited medical schools in Canada, the UK and the US to check which medical humanities topics were taught, and whether they were mandatory or optional. We then noted rankings both by Times Higher Education and U.S. News and World Report and calculated the average rank. We formally explored whether there was an association between average medical school ranking and medical humanities offerings using Spearman's correlation and inverse variance weighting meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 18 accredited medical school programmes in Canada, 41 in the UK, and 154 in the US. Of these, nine (56%) in Canada, 34 (73%) in the UK and 124 (80%) in the US offered at least one medical humanity that was not ethics. The most common medical humanities were medical humanities (unspecified), history, and literature (Canada); sociology and social medicine, medical humanities (unspecified), and art (UK); and medical humanities (unspecified), literature and history (US). Higher ranked medical schools appeared less likely to offer medical humanities. CONCLUSIONS: The extent and content of medical humanities offerings at accredited medical schools in Canada, the UK and the US varies, and there appears to be an inverse relationship between medical school quality and medical humanities offerings. Our analysis was limited by the data provided on the Universities' websites. Given the potential for medical humanities to improve medical education and medical practice, opportunities to reduce this variation should be exploited.
Asunto(s)
Educación de Pregrado en Medicina , Educación Médica , Canadá , Curriculum , Humanidades , Humanos , Facultades de Medicina , Reino Unido , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Nocebo effects occur when an individual experiences undesirable physiological reactions caused by doxastic states that are not a treatment's core or characteristic features.1 As Scott Gelfand2 points out, there are numerous studies that have shown that the disclosure of a treatment's side effects to a patient increases the risk of the side effects. From an ethical point of view, nocebo effects caused by the disclosures of side effects present a challenging problem. On the one hand, clinicians' duty to inform patients of the consequences (including possible side effects) of their treatments is critical in ensuring that patients' autonomy is respected. Patients cannot act autonomously if relevant information is withheld from them (without their consent, perhaps). On the other hand, clinicians also ought to minimize harm to patients.
Asunto(s)
Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Efecto Nocebo , Revelación , Humanos , Consentimiento InformadoRESUMEN
Many clinical ethicists have argued that ethics expertise is impossible. Their skeptical argument usually rests on the assumptions that to be an ethics expert is to know the correct moral conclusions, which can only be arrived at by having the correct ethical theories. In this paper, I argue that this skeptical argument is unsound. To wit, ordinary ethical deliberations do not require the appeal to ethical or meta-ethical theories. Instead, by agreeing to resolve moral differences by appealing to reasons, the participants agree to the Default Principle-a substantive rule that tells us how to adjudicate an ethical disagreement. The Default Principle also entails a commitment to arguments by parity, and together these two methodological approaches allow us to make genuine moral progress without assuming any deep ethical principles. Ethical expertise, in one sense, is thus the ability and knowledge to deploy the Default Principle and arguments by parity.
Asunto(s)
Discusiones Bioéticas , Competencia Clínica/normas , Ética Clínica , Ética Profesional , Disentimientos y Disputas , Ética Médica , HumanosAsunto(s)
Antidepresivos/efectos adversos , United States Food and Drug Administration , Adolescente , Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Trastorno Depresivo Mayor/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Medición de Riesgo , Inhibidores Selectivos de la Recaptación de Serotonina/efectos adversos , Inhibidores Selectivos de la Recaptación de Serotonina/uso terapéutico , Ideación Suicida , Reino Unido , Estados UnidosAsunto(s)
Pena de Muerte , Comercio , Turismo Médico , Obligaciones Morales , Trasplante de Órganos/ética , Prisioneros , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/ética , Beneficencia , Pena de Muerte/legislación & jurisprudencia , China , Análisis Ético , Ética Clínica , Ética Médica , Humanos , Juicio , Trasplante de Riñón/ética , Trasplante de Hígado/ética , Metáfora , Trasplante de Órganos/efectos adversos , Política Pública , Estados Unidos , Listas de EsperaRESUMEN
A number of philosophers have argued that alcoholics should receive lower priority for liver transplantations because they are morally responsible for their medical conditions. In this paper, I argue that this conclusion is false. Moral responsibility should not be used as a criterion for the allocation of medical resources. The reason I advance goes further than the technical problem of assessing moral responsibility. The deeper problem is that using moral responsibility as an allocation criterion undermines the functioning of medicine.