In the next 10-15 years most of the major ethical dilemmas facing family physicians will grow more acute. This is not to imply that things are getting worse. On the contrary, it is the simultaneous growth of miraculous methods and frightening risks that will make the dilemmas more acute. In the next 15-25 years, we will learn how to minimize the risks. Several major ethical dilemmas of medical practice are reviewed from this perspective. Finally, some issues are considered that do not fit this pattern and that have the potential to become a much greater challenge to humanity. (+info)
Understanding and responding to youth substance use: the contribution of a health and human rights framework.
(35/434)
This article examines the utility of a health and human rights framework for conceptualizing and responding to the causes and consequences of substance use among young people. It provides operational definitions of "youth" and "substances," a review of current international and national efforts to address substance use among youths, and an introduction to human rights and the intersection between health and human rights. A methodology for modeling vulnerability in relation to harmful substance use is introduced and contemporary international and national responses are discussed. When governments uphold their obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, vulnerability to harmful substance use and its consequences can be reduced. (+info)
A population-based assessment of human rights abuses committed against ethnic Albanian refugees from Kosovo.
(36/434)
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed patterns of displacement and human rights abuses among Kosovar refugees in Macedonia and Albania. METHODS: Between April 19 and May 3, 1999, 1180 ethnic Albanian refugees living in 31 refugee camps and collective centers in Macedonia and Albania were interviewed. RESULTS: The majority (68%) of participants reported that their families were directly expelled from their homes by Serb forces. Overall, 50% of participants saw Serb police or soldiers burning the houses of others, 16% saw Serb police or soldiers burn their own home, and 14% witnessed Serb police or soldiers killing someone. Large percentages of participants saw destroyed mosques, schools, or medical facilities. Thirty-one percent of respondents reported human rights abuses committed against their household members, including beatings, killings, torture, forced separation and disappearances, gunshot wounds, and sexual assault. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings confirm that Serb forces engaged in a systematic and brutal campaign to forcibly expel the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo. In the course of these mass deportations, Serb forces committed widespread abuses of human rights against ethnic Albanians. (+info)
Prevention of disability on grounds of suffering.
(37/434)
This paper examines one particular justification for the screening and termination of embryos/fetuses which possess genetic features known to cause disability. The particular case is that put forward in several places by John Harris. He argues that the obligation to prevent needless suffering justifies the prevention of the births of disabled neonates. The paper begins by rehearsing Harris's case. Then, drawing upon claims advanced in a recent paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, it is subjected to critical scrutiny, focusing on Harris's "suffering claim" (the claim that a life with disability inevitably involves suffering on a significant scale).(1) It is argued that the suffering claim must be false if understood as an empirical claim. And, even if understood as a conceptual truth, it mistakenly assimilates the concepts of harm and suffering. Finally, again focusing on Harris's recent work in this area, his characterisation of disability as a "harmed condition" is shown not to apply in the case of at least some moderate forms of intellectual disability. (+info)
One principle and three fallacies of disability studies.
(38/434)
My critics in this symposium illustrate one principle and three fallacies of disability studies. The principle, which we all share, is that all persons are equal and none are less equal than others. No disability, however slight, nor however severe, implies lesser moral, political or ethical status, worth or value. This is a version of the principle of equality. The three fallacies exhibited by some or all of my critics are the following: (1) Choosing to repair damage or dysfunction or to enhance function, implies either that the previous state is intolerable or that the person in that state is of lesser value or indicates that the individual in that state has a life that is not worthwhile or not thoroughly worth living. None of these implications hold. (2) Exercising choice in reproduction with the aim of producing children who will be either less damaged or diseased, or more healthy, or who will have enhanced capacities, violates the principle or equality. It does not. (3) Disability or impairment must be defined relative either to normalcy, "normal species functioning", or "species typical functioning". It is not necessarily so defined. (+info)
Liberty and psychiatry.
(39/434)
The security facilities available in one regional health authority area have been surveyed. The simultaneous run-down of the large mental hospitals and the open-door policy have resulted in a lack of facilities for mentally abnormal offenders, and the increasing scarcity of common lodging houses has exacerbated the problem. Newer psychiatric units associated with general hospitals have been mainly concerned with patients suffering from neurosis or acute psychoses. The failure to develop other services to deal with offenders has seriously overburdened both the penal system and the special hospitals. (+info)
Prophylactic interventions on children: balancing human rights with public health.
(40/434)
Bioethics committees have issued guidelines that medical interventions should be permissible only in cases of clinically verifiable disease, deformity, or injury. Furthermore, once the existence of one or more of these requirements has been proven, the proposed therapeutic procedure must reasonably be expected to result in a net benefit to the patient. As an exception to this rule, some prophylactic interventions might be performed on individuals "in their best interests" or with the aim of averting an urgent and potentially calamitous public health danger. In order to invoke these exceptions, a stringent set of criteria must first be satisfied. Additionally, where the proposed prophylactic intervention is intended for children, who are unlikely to be able to provide a meaningfully informed consent, a heightened scrutiny of any such measures is required. We argue that children should not be subjected to prophylactic interventions "in their best interests" or for public health reasons when there exist effective and conservative alternative interventions, such as behavioural modification, that individuals could employ as competent adolescents or adults to avoid adverse health outcomes. Applying these criteria, we consider the specific examples of prophylactic mastectomy, immunisations, cosmetic ear surgery, and circumcision. (+info)