Blanket Consent and Trust in the Biobanking Context.

Obtaining human genetic samples is vital for many biobank research purposes, yet, the ethics of obtainment seems to many fraught with difficulties. One key issue is consent: it is by many considered ethically vital that consent must be fully informed (at least ideally speaking) in order to be legitimate. In this paper, we argue for a more liberal approach to consent: a donor need not know all the specifics of future uses of the sample. We argue that blanket consent is ethically defensible, and that this is buttressed by considerations of (justified) trust-relations. Given robust institutional oversight, blanket consent is a permissible form of consent in the bio-banking context.

Property and human genetic information.

Do donors (of samples from which genetic information is derived) have some sort of pre-legal (moral) or legal property right to that information? In this paper, we address this question from both a moral philosophical and a legal point of view. We argue that philosophical theories about property do not seem to support a positive answer: We have not mixed our labour with our genes, and the human genome cannot be said to be a fitting object for private ownership based on some idea of self-ownership. An analysis of the term 'property' as seen from a legal perspective yields the conclusion that property is, at best, a linguistic prop whose real content has to be defined at least partially conventionally. Relevant interests that may be seen to be protected seem to be interests of privacy or interests against exploitation. To the extent that the logic behind the patent system holds true limiting incentives decreases innovation in society. A balancing of interest must take place, and we have to make sure that patent protection serves general societal interests and not just those of special interest groups be that inventors or donors.

The Legal Ethical Backbone of Conscientious Refusal.

This article analyzes the idea of a legal right to conscientious refusal for healthcare professionals from a basic legal ethical standpoint, using refusal to perform tasks related to legal abortion (in cases of voluntary employment) as a case in point. The idea of a legal right to conscientious refusal is distinguished from ideas regarding moral rights or reasons related to conscientious refusal, and none of the latter are found to support the notion of a legal right. Reasons for allowing some sort of room for conscientious refusal for healthcare professionals based on the importance of cultural identity and the fostering of a critical atmosphere might provide some support, if no countervailing factors apply. One such factor is that a legal right to healthcare professionals' conscientious refusal must comply with basic legal ethical tenets regarding the rule of law and equal treatment, and this requirement is found to create serious problems for those wishing to defend the idea under consideration. We conclude that the notion of a legal right to conscientious refusal for any profession is either fundamentally incompatible with elementary legal ethical requirements, or implausible because it undermines the functioning of a related professional sector (healthcare) or even of society as a whole.

Fighting Status Inequalities: Non-domination vs Non-interference.

Status inequalities seem to play a fairly big role in creating inequalities in health. This article assumes that there can be good reasons to fight status inequalities in order to reduce inequalities in health. It examines whether the neorepublican ideal of non-dominance does a better job as a theoretical foil for this as compared to a liberal notion of non-interference. The article concludes that there is a prima facie case for incorporating non-dominance into our thinking about public health, but that it needs to go hand in hand with a more traditional liberal ideal of non-interference.

Personal Responsibility and Lifestyle Diseases.

What does it take for an individual to be personally responsible for behaviors that lead to increased risk of disease? We examine three approaches to responsibility that cover the most important aspects of the discussion of responsibility and spell out what it takes, according to each of them, to be responsible for behaviors leading to increased risk of disease. We show that only what we call the causal approach can adequately accommodate widely shared intuitions to the effect that certain causal influences-such as genetic make-up or certain social circumstances-diminish, or undermine personal responsibility. However, accepting the causal approach most likely makes personal responsibility impossible. We therefore need either to reject these widely shared intuitions about what counts as responsibility-softening or undermining or to accept that personal responsibility for behaviors leading to increased risk of disease rests on premises so shaky that personal responsibility is probably impossible.

Backward- and forward-looking responsibility for obesity: policies from WHO, the EU and England.

BACKGROUND: In assigning responsibility for obesity prevention a distinction may be drawn between who is responsible for the rise in obesity prevalence ('backward-looking responsibility'), and who is responsible for reducing it ('forward-looking responsibility'). METHODS: We study how the two aspects of responsibility figure in the obesity policies of WHO (European Region), the EU and the Department of Health (England). RESULTS: Responsibility for the emergence and reduction of obesity is assigned to both individuals and other actors to different degrees in the policies, combining an individual and a systemic view. The policies assign backward-looking responsibility to individuals, the social environment, the authorities and businesses. When it comes to forward-looking responsibility, individuals are expected to play a central role in reducing and preventing obesity, but other actors are also urged to act. WHO assigns to individuals the lowest degree of backward- and forward-looking responsibility, and the Department of Health (England) assigns them the highest degree of responsibility. DISCUSSION: Differences in the assignment of backward- and above all forward-looking responsibility could be explained to some extent by the different roles of the three authorities making the plans. WHO is a UN agency with health as its goal, the EU is a liberal economic union with optimization of the internal European market as an important task, and England, as an independent sovereign country, has its own economic responsibilities.

Should we hold the obese responsible? - some key issues.

It is a common belief that obesity is wholly or partially a question of personal choice and personal responsibility. It is also widely assumed that when individuals are responsible for some unfortunate state of affairs, society bears no burden to compensate them. This article focuses on two conceptualizations of responsibility: backward-looking and forward-looking conceptualizations. When ascertaining responsibility in a backward-looking sense, one has to determine how that state of affairs came into being or where the agent stood in relation to it. In contrast, a forward-looking conceptualization of responsibility puts aside questions of the past and holds a person responsible by reference to some desirable future state of affairs and will typically mean that he or she is subjected to criticism, censure, or other negative appraisals or that he or she is held cost-responsible in some form, for example, in terms of demanded compensation, loss of privileges, or similar. One example of this view is the debate as to whether the obese should be denied, wholly or partially, free and equal access to healthcare, not because they are somehow personally responsible in the backward-looking sense but simply because holding the obese responsible will have positive consequences. Taking these two conceptions of responsibility into account, the authors turn their analysis toward examining the relevant moral considerations to be taken into account when public policies regarding obesity rely on such a conception of responsibility.

Bioethics in Denmark. Moving from first- to second-order analysis?

This article examines two current debates in Denmark--assisted suicide and the prioritization of health resources--and proposes that such controversial bioethical issues call for distinct philosophical analyses: first-order examinations, or an applied philosophy approach, and second-order examinations, what might be called a political philosophical approach. The authors argue that although first-order examination plays an important role in teasing out different moral points of view, in contemporary democratic societies, few, if any, bioethical questions can be resolved satisfactorily by means of first-order analyses alone, and that bioethics needs to engage more closely with second-order enquiries and the question of legitimacy in general.