DOCSLIB.ORG

Harvard Bioethics Course

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2015-06-05 ZURICH INTENSIVE BIOETHICS COURSE IBME 10th Anniversary Symposium NOVEMBER 13–15, 2015 Universitätsspital Zürich, Großer Hörsaal Nord University of Zurich/University Hospital Zurich Institute for Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine Nikola Biller Andorno MD PhD Tanja Krones MD Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics Christine Mitchell RN MS MTS Robert D Truog MD – Tentative Program – 5 June 2015 2015-06-05 ZURICH INTENSIVE BIOETHICS COURSE IBME 10th Anniversary Symposium NOVEMBER 13–15, 2015 Friday, November 13 8:00 am Registration 8:30 Welcome and Introduction Jürg Hodler (Medical Director USZ), Rainer Weber (Medical Dean UZH), Christine Mitchell (HMS), Nikola Biller-Andorno (IBME) 8:45 Development of Clinical Bioethics Christine Mitchell 9:30 Questions and Comments 9:45 Ethical Reasoning and Justification Tony Hope 10:30 Questions and Comments 10:45 Refreshment Break 11:00 Microethics Robert Truog 11:45 Questions and Comments 12:00 Transition Break (pick up box lunch) 12:15 Small Group Case Discussion over Lunch: East European Perspectives (assigned rooms) 1:15 Transition Break 1:30 Moral Deliberation: Three Approaches Principlism Oliver Rauprich Utilitarianism Dieter Birnbacher Care Ethics Nikola Biller-Andorno 2:30 Questions and Comments 2:45 Transition 3:00 Concurrent Sessions Competencies for Ethics Consultation Christine Mitchell Ethics and Economics in Health Care Nikola Biller-Andorno Medical Futility Robert Truog Evaluating Clinical Ethics Rouven Porz Ethics in Everyday Palliative Care Nina Streeck 4:00 Transition 4:15 Tensions between Autonomy and Beneficence Claudia Wiesemann 5:00 Questions and Comments 5:15 Networking Reception and Buffet 6:00 Bioethics and Film Tobias Eichinger 2015-06-05 ZURICH INTENSIVE BIOETHICS COURSE IBME 10th Anniversary Symposium NOVEMBER 13–15, 2015 Saturday, November 14 8:20 Announcements 8:30 Ethics Consultation: Standards and Competencies Tanja Krones 9:15 Questions and Comments 9:30 Moral Deliberation: Three More Approaches Casuistry Gerald Neitzke Nursing Ethics Settimio Monteverde Narrative Ethics Martha Montello 10:30 Questions and Comments 10:45 Refreshment Break 11:00 Rationing and Distributive Justice Markus Zimmermann 11:45 Questions and Comments 12:00 Transition break (pick up box lunch) 12:15 Small Group Case Discussion over Lunch: East European Perspectives (assigned rooms) 1:15 Transition Break 1:30 Teaching Bioethics: Practical Approaches to Common Challenges Verina Wild 2:15 Questions and Comments 2:30 Transition 2:45 Concurrent Sessions Advance Care Planning: Legal documents to patient-centered process Tanja Krones Global Reproductive Justice Agomoni Ganguli-Mitra Assessing Decision-Making Capacity Manuel Trachsel Pediatric Ethics Jürg Streuli Teaching Bioethics: Program to Enhance Relational & Communication Skills R. Truog 3:45 Refreshment Break and Transition 4:00 Human Rights, Legal Norms and Clinical Bioethics Richard Ashcroft 4:45 Questions and Comments 5:00 Coming to Terms. Suffering and Healing in and through Literature Hildegard E. Keller 5:45 Questions and Comments 6:00 Transfer 7:00 Zoo Zürich, Thai Lodge Conference Dinner 2015-06-05 ZURICH INTENSIVE BIOETHICS COURSE IBME 10th Anniversary Symposium NOVEMBER 13–15, 2015 Sunday, November 15 8:20 Announcements 8:30 New Ethical Questions in the Genomic Era Effy Vayena 9:15 Questions and Comments 9:30 When Things Go Wrong: Talking with Patients after Medical Mistakes Robert Truog 10:15 Questions and Comments 10:30 Refreshment Break 10:45 Disorders of Consciousness (Brain Death, PVS, MCS…) Thomas I. Cochrane 11:30 Questions and Comments 11:45 Mind the Gap: Reason and Emotion in Ethics John Lantos 12:30 Questions and Comments 12:45 Transition (pick up box lunch) 1:00 Small Group Discussion over Lunch: Ethics Committees and Consultation (assigned rooms) 2:00 Transition 2:15 Live Hard and Die Old? Historical Reflections on Modern Medicine Flurin Condrau 3:00 Questions and Comments 3:15 Refreshment Break 3:30 The Future of Clinical Bioethics in Europe Nikola Biller-Andorno 4:15 Questions and Comments 4:30 Evaluation and Closing Remarks Tanja Krones 4:45 Adjourn .
Recommended publications
  • Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Research Involving Prisoners Albert J

    Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Research Involving Prisoners Albert J

    June 2005 Center for Mental Health Services Research Vol 2, Issue 6 University of Massachusetts Medical School Issue Brief Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Research Involving Prisoners Albert J. Grudzinskas, Jr., JD and Jonathan C. Clayfield, MA, LMHC he attitude that, “it is not cruel to inflict The Belmont Report identified three basic on a few criminals, sufferings which ethical principles critical to any research conducted may benefit multitudes of innocent with human subjects and, in particular, prisoners: T respect for persons, beneficence and justice. people through all centuries,” has prevailed in the area of research involving prisoners Respect for persons holds that each individual is through history.1 The very nature of incarceration autonomous and should be treated as free to make – controlled diet and living conditions, subject his or her own choices. The nature of prison, availability, etc. – make prisoners an attractive however, leads to restrictions on autonomy. For example, while paying subjects to participate population to study. There are, however, special in research is considered ethically acceptable, considerations when prisoners participate in prisoners may be unduly influenced or enticed research that must be addressed to ensure their by the monetary gain of participation given that protection as human subjects. This brief will prisoners typically earn far less for other “work” explore some of the issues critical to working activities. Careful consideration should be given with prisoners in research, will discuss the to an individual’s ability to make autonomous standards of informed consent and competency, decisions in light of the possible coercion inherent in a specific environment or setting.
  • Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses As Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers

    Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses As Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers

    societies Article Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers Rochelle Deloria 1 and Gregor Wolbring 2,* 1 Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N4N1, Canada 2 Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N4N1, Canada * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 14 April 2019; Accepted: 22 August 2019; Published: 26 August 2019 Abstract: Neurosciences and neurotechnologies (from now on called neuro-advancements) constantly evolve and influence all facets of society. Neuroethics and neuro-governance discourses focus on the impact of neuro-advancements on individuals and society, and stakeholder involvement is identified as an important aspect of being able to deal with such an impact. Nurses engage with neuro-advancements within their occupation, including neuro-linked assistive technologies, such as brain-computer interfaces, cochlear implants, and virtual reality. The role of nurses is multifaceted and includes being providers of clinical and other health services, educators, advocates for their field and their clients, including disabled people, researchers, and influencers of policy discourses. Nurses have a stake in how neuro-advancements are governed, therefore, being influencers of neuroethics and neuro-governance discourses should be one of these roles. Lifelong learning and professional development could be one mechanism to increase the knowledge of nurses about ethical, social, and legal issues linked to neuro-advancements, which in turn, would allow nurses to provide meaningful input towards neuro-advancement discussions. Disabled people are often the recipients of neuro-advancements and are clients of nurses, therefore, they have a stake in the way nurses interact with neuro-advancements and influence the sociotechnical context of neuro-advancements, which include neuro-linked assistive devices.
  • CECA COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2012 PRESENT

    CECA COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2012 PRESENT

    CECA COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2012 PRESENT ABSENT Armand Antommaria Jack Gallagher Art Derse Christine Mitchell Bob Baker (Code liaison) Nneka Mokwunye Ken Berkowitz Tia Powell Jeffrey Berger Marty Smith Joseph Carrese Brian Childs Paula Goodman-Crews Ann Heesters Martha Jurchak Kayhan Parsi Kathy Powderly Terry Rosell Wayne Shelton Jeffrey Spike Anita Tarzian (chair) Lucia Wocial Pearls & Pitfalls paper The “HCEC PEARLS AND PITFALLS”: Suggested Do’s And Don’ts for Health Care Ethics Consultants” manuscript has been accepted by JCE. JCE will retain the copyright for the full article, but the Pearls & Pitfalls themselves can be posted on ASBH website and used by others (with appropriate citation). Timing of the publication has not yet been established. Joe mentioned the statement in the current manuscript that readers can provide feedback about the paper on the ASBH website. Kayhan mentioned that ASBH’s website is currently undergoing revision, and will check with Chris Welber at AMC regarding the ability to have visitors post feedback on a specific location of the website. The manuscript will be modified accordingly before publication to match website capacity. Update from Board The Board is asking that CECA submit the Request for Proposals that was previously put on hold pending the Quality Attestation efforts underway. The Board has decided to pursue both activities in parallel. Anita will circulate the current RFP draft to CECA members to identify a process for completing this and submitting to the Board. The Board is developing operating standards for ASBH standing committees, which will impact CECA’s recent discussion about term limits and member rotation.
  • A Philosophical Investigation of Principlism and the Implications Raised by the Treatment of the Mentally Ill

    A Philosophical Investigation of Principlism and the Implications Raised by the Treatment of the Mentally Ill

    Aporia vol. 24 no. 1—2014 A Philosophical Investigation of Principlism and the Implications Raised by the Treatment of the Mentally Ill BENJAMIN FOSTER Introduction he objective of this investigation is to identify reasonable and relevant problems and issues posed for Principlism by the mentally T ill. Two concepts of Principlism will be presented: a normative con- ceptualization of the bioethical theory and a descriptive conceptualization. In reference to both, two philosophical questions will be asked: can we know the natures of other minds and, if so, how? These two questions have theoretical and practical implications for the treatment of the mentally ill. And, in so far as the questions have implications for the treatment of the mentally ill, they have implications for the bioethical theory of Principlism. There is a lack of concurrence on the meaning, nature, and function of mental phenomena, producing conceptual difficulties concerning the common morality that provides Principlism its normative authority. Similarly, a contradiction appears to arise when one considers the imaginative leap of predicting another’s desires, feelings, and thoughts, a maneuver that professionals participating in the treatment of the mentally ill must perform. There is also significant ambiguity surrounding the concept of mental illness, which produces pragmatic problems when professionals attempt to diagnose and treat an individual in conjunction Benjamin Foster graduated with a degree in philosophy and a minor in biology from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. While there he served as president of the univer- sity’s philosophy club, The Socratic Society. His primary philosophical interests include ethics and epistemology. He currently plans to attend medical school.
  • Position on Bioethics

    Position on Bioethics

    Position on Bioethics Background Bioethics refers to the application of ethical principles to address potential ethical questions arising from biological research, science and medicine. Bioethics may include ethical dimensions of medical research, clinical trials, use of different forms of technology in healthcare, public policy, prioritization of research and resources, and much more. For any company involved in healthcare, bioethics questions frequently arise and require resolutions based on accepted bioethics principles. The four commonly accepted principles of bioethics1 are: • Autonomy: Requires that the patient have autonomy of thought, intention and action when making decisions regarding healthcare procedures and must give fully informed consent with knowledge of all risks and benefits of the procedure and the likelihood of success. • Justice: Requires that procedures uphold the spirit of existing laws and are fair to all players involved, ensuring that no population be overly burdened or overly valued in research and scientific progress. • Beneficence: Requires that the procedure be provided with the intent of doing good for the patient involved, considers individual circumstances of all patients and strives for net benefit. • Non-maleficence: Requires that a procedure does not harm the patient involved or others in society. Relevance Bioethics plays a critical role in the advancement of human health by ensuring safe, ethical and just applications of new science and technological and therapeutic breakthroughs. As the world’s largest and most broadly based healthcare company, reaching patients and consumers each day with our medicines, consumer care products and medical devices, Johnson & Johnson is a leader in healthcare research and development. We employ significant resources in the development of new medicines and medical devices and their application.
  • The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements

    The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements

    Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements 1 Public review draft for reading* Note: To submit comments about this draft, please use the per-Provision files and cite the line numbers to which you are referring. The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements Silver Spring, Maryland 2014 * For public review and comment May 6 through June 6, 2014. Not for attribution or distribution © 2014 American Nurses Association Note: To submit comments about this draft, please use the per-Provision files and cite the line numbers to which you are referring. Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements 2 Public review draft for reading* Note: To submit comments about this draft, please use the per-Provision files and cite the line numbers to which you are referring. Contents The Code of Ethics for Nurses Preface Provision 1 1.1 Respect for human dignity 1.2 Relationships to patients 1.3 The nature of health 1.4 The right to self-determination 1.5 Relationships with colleagues and others Provision 2 2.1 Primacy of the patient's interests 2.2 Conflict of interest for nurses 2.3 Collaboration 2.4 Professional boundaries Provision 3 3.1 Protection of the rights of privacy and confidentiality 3.2 Protection of human participants in research 3.3 Performance standards and review mechanisms 3.4 Professional competence in nursing practice 3.5 Protecting patient health and safety by action on questionable practice 3.6 Patient protection and impaired practice * For public review and comment May 6 through June 6, 2014. Not for attribution or distribution © 2014 American Nurses Association Note: To submit comments about this draft, please use the per-Provision files and cite the line numbers to which you are referring.
  • Top 50 Bioethics Journals and Top 250 Most Cited Bioethics Articles Since 2011, 2016 Edition May 23, 2016 | BRL Blog, Featured

    Top 50 Bioethics Journals and Top 250 Most Cited Bioethics Articles Since 2011, 2016 Edition May 23, 2016 | BRL Blog, Featured

    U a Top 50 Bioethics Journals and Top 250 Most Cited Bioethics Articles Since 2011, 2016 Edition May 23, 2016 | BRL Blog, Featured This 2016 edition of the “top bioethics journals and articles” list includes updated rankings for bioethics journals and new citation metrics for articles published in 2015, as well as updates for previous years’ top articles. Links to the publisher pages are included for each article as well as links to their citation page on Google Scholar. The average H5 index for the top fifty-two journals is 13.38, with a tied high of 28 and a minimum of 6. Here are the top top 52 journals and 252 most cited articles from the top bioethics journals published in 2009 through 2015. View the Top Articles by Year: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011. About this Analysis This is an updated citation analysis for 2011 through 2015 of the top 100 bioethics journals. I’ve included the top 50 journals and the top cited articles per year including the h5 ranking. Just over 20,000 articles were analyzed in this dataset, shared here as a spreadsheet. If you’re interested in using this study in a publication or presentation please let me know so I can share a link to your research on this blog post. I utilized Harzing’s Publish or Perish software over a period of 10 days to gather this new data in May, 2016. The citation metrics are from Google Scholar’s index. Author: Mark Hakkarinen, M.A. Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University.
  • Religion and Ethics in Pluralistic Healthcare Contexts

    Religion and Ethics in Pluralistic Healthcare Contexts

    RELIGION AND ETHICS IN PLURALISTIC HEALTHCARE CONTEXTS May 10 –12, 2012 Trinity Western University Langley, BC Faith & Nursing Symposium trinity western university, langley, bc, may 10-12th, 2012 Program Overview day 1 – thursday, may 10th, 2012 7-9 pm Registration and Conference Opening Reception day 2 – friday, may 11th, 2012 8 am Registration (Coffee, Breakfast) 8:30 am Welcome and Conference Opening 8:45 am plenary session Beth Johnston Taylor “What Does Spirituality Mean to Nursing?” 9:45 am Poster Overviews 10:15 am Morning Coffee 10:45 am concurrent sessions 1 12:45 pm Lunch 1:45 pm plenary session Marsha Fowler “Religious Ethics: What Are the Imperatives and the Risks?” 2:45 pm Panel of Book Authors (Moderator: Jan Storch) 4 pm Book Signing and Reception 5:30 pm BBQ Dinner 7 pm public panel Jas Cheema, Janice Clarke, Rani Srivastava, Evelyn Voyageur “A Multi-Faith Dialogue on Diversity and Health Care Services” day 3 – saturday, may 12th, 2012 The conference committee is grateful for the 8 am Registration (Coffee, Breakfast) support of the conference from the Priscilla 8:30 am plenary session Sonya Grypma and Stranford Reid Trust Foundation “Angels of Mercy? Religion, History and Nursing Identity” 9:15 am concurrent sessions 2 and the twu Internal Grants program. 10:15 am Morning Coffee 10:45 am concurrent sessions 3 12:15 am Lunch 1:15 pm plenary session Donal O’Mathuna “A Christian Perspective on Health Care Ethics in Pluralistic Societies” 2 pm Afternoon Tea 2:30 pm workshop “Nursing at the Borderlands of Religious and Cultural
  • Informed Consent and Refusal

    Informed Consent and Refusal

    CHAPTER 3 Informed Consent and Refusal Evolution of the doctrine of informed consent Elements of informed consent and refusal The nature of informed consent Exceptions to the consent requirement Mrs. Stack is a 67- year- old woman admitted with rectal bleeding, chronic renal in- sufficiency, diabetes, and blindness. On admission, she was alert and capacitated. Two weeks later, she suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest, was resuscitated and intu- bated, and was transferred to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) in an unrespon- sive and unstable state. Consent for emergency dialysis was obtained from her son, who is also her health care agent. Dialysis was repeated two days later. During the past several years, Mrs. Stack has consistently stated to her family and her primary care doctor that she would never want to be on chronic dialysis and she has refused it numerous times when it was recommended. The physician, who has known and treated Mrs. Stack for many years, also treated her daughter who had been on chronic dialysis for some time and had died after suffering a heart attack. According to the physician and the patient’s family, Mrs. Stack’s refusal of dialysis has been based on her conviction that her daughter died as a result of the dialysis treatments. Mrs. Stack’s mental status has cleared considerably and, despite the ventilator, she is able to communicate nonverbally. Although she appears to understand the benefits of dialysis and the consequences of refusing it, including deterioration and eventual death, she has consistently and vehemently refused further treatments. Her capacity to make this decision is not now in question.
  • Love; a Relevant Concept in Nursing and Caring Science Charles Emakpor and Maj–Helen Nyback

    Love; a Relevant Concept in Nursing and Caring Science Charles Emakpor and Maj–Helen Nyback

    Love; A Relevant Concept in Nursing and Caring Science Charles Emakpor and Maj–Helen Nyback Series A: Articles, 2/2010 www.novia.fi/english Love; A Relevant Concept in Nursing and Caring Science Novia Publications and Productions, series A: Articles, 2/2010 Publisher: Novia University of Applied Sciences, Tehtaankatu 1, Vaasa, Finland © 2010 Charles Emakpor, Maj–Helen Nyback, and Novia University of Applied Sciences Layout: Michael Diedrichs Love; A Relevant Concept in Nursing and Caring Science / Charles Emakpor, Maj–Helen Nyback. – Vaasa: Novia University of Applied Sciences, 2010. Novia Publications and Productions, series A: Articles, 2/2010. 2 ISSN: 1799-4187 (Online) ISBN (digital): 978-952-5839-10-4 Love; A Relevant Concept in Nursing and Caring Science Charles Emakpor and Maj–Helen Nyback 3 Content Abstract 5 Caring science 5 Love 6 Agape 7 Eros 8 Discussion 9 Reference list 11 4 LOVE; A RELEVANT CONCEPT IN NURSING AND CARING SCIENCE Abstract Love is for the world what the sun is for the exterior life (Steiner, 1978) and it adds beauty, joy and satisfaction to the practice of nursing and also to the caring process. One reason for suffering is the lack of care, and the motive for caring is, according to Eriksson (2001), love. The lack of love can be a reason for the lack of care, which motivates the study of the concept “love” in caring science. The aim of this article is to describe and discuss the concept of love and the way it is related to nursing and caring science. Caring science Caring is essential for human survival and development (Gaylin, 1976, 17) and it manifests the human mode of being (Roach, 1997, 14).
  • How to Think About Wild Animal Suffering

    How to Think About Wild Animal Suffering

    How to Think About Wild Animal Suffering ! m a g e + J i m b o o m b a P o l i c e , T h e T i m e s ( A free lecture by Dale Jamieson, PhD Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy, New York University Director, Center for Environmental and Animal Protection Monday, February 3rd, 4:00 – 5:20 p.m. David Strong Building, Rm. # C126 It has been widely reported that more than a billion animals have been killed in Australia in the fires that have been raging since late last year. The Australian grandmother who risked her life to save a Koala from a burning tree is widely seen as a hero. Yet in the normal course of events billions of animals die every day (including about 150 million for food). Are we obliged to do what we can to save them all? The logic of at least some animal protection philosophies seems to say “yes:” We should eliminate suffering whenever and wherever we can, whether it is caused by human action, by the predation of one animal on another, or by the impersonal workings of nature. But to many environmentalists and others, this vision of “policing nature” seems mad or worse. Questions about wild animal suffering not only threaten to disrupt alliances between animal protectionists and environmentalist, but go to the very heart of what it is to be human living in a natural world. While I do not purport to provide the correct answers to the many questions in this area, I do hope to clarify some of the issues and contribute to thinking clearly about them.
  • Informed Consent

    Informed Consent

    Christine Grady Department of Bioethics NIH Clinical Center The views expressed here are mine and do not necessarily represent those of the CC, NIH, or Department of Health and Human Services Informed consent is the bedrock principle on which most of modern research ethics rest…This was at the heart of the crucial ethical provision stated in the first words of the Nuremberg Code, and it remains equally compelling a half century later. Menikoff J, Camb Quarterly 2004 p 342 Authorization of an activity based on understanding what the activity entails. A legal, regulatory, and ethical requirement in health care and in most research with human subjects A process of reasoned decision making (not a form or an episode) One aspect of conducting ethical clinical research “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what will be done with his body… Justice Cardozo, 1914 Respect for autonomy or for an individual’s capacity and right to define own goals and make choices consistent with those goals. Well entrenched in American values, jurisprudence, medical practice, and clinical research. “Informed consent is rooted in the fundamental recognition…that adults are entitled to accept or reject health care interventions on the basis of their own personal values and in furtherance of their own personal goals” Presidents Commission for the study of ethical problems…1982 Informed consent in medical practice …informed consent in clinical practice is frequently inadequate… Physicians receive little training… Misunderstand requirements and legal standards… Time pressures and competing demands… Patient comprehension is often poor… Recent studies have demonstrated improvement in patient understanding of risks after communication interventions Schenker et al 2010; Matiasek et al.