17 research outputs found

    “Just one animal among many?” Existential phenomenology, ethics, and stem cell research

    Get PDF
    Stem cell research and associated or derivative biotechnologies are proceeding at a pace that has left bioethics behind as a discipline that is more or less reactionary to their developments. Further, much of the available ethical deliberation remains determined by the conceptual framework of late modern metaphysics and the correlative ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology. Lacking, to any meaningful extent, is a sustained engagement with ontological and epistemological critiques, such as with “postmodern” thinking like that of Heidegger’s existential phenomenology. Some basic “Heideggerian” conceptual strategies are reviewed here as a way of remedying this deficiency and adding to ethical deliberation about current stem cell research practices

    Risk and risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research

    Full text link

    Zur Möglichkeit einer kulturĂŒbergreifenden Bioethik

    Full text link

    Zur Möglichkeit einer kulturĂŒbergreifenden Bioethik

    No full text

    Would you sell a kidney in a regulated kidney market? Results of an exploratory study

    Full text link
    BACKGROUND: It is often claimed that a regulated kidney market would significantly reduce the kidney shortage, thus saving or improving many lives. Data are lacking, however, on how many people would consider selling a kidney in such a market. METHODS: A survey instrument, developed to assess behavioural dispositions to and attitudes about a hypothetical regulated kidney market, was given to Swiss third-year medical students. RESULTS: Respondents' (n = 178) median age was 23 years. Their socioeconomic status was high or middle (94.6%). 48 (27%) considered selling a kidney in a regulated kidney market, of whom 31 (66%) would sell only to overcome a particularly difficult financial situation. High social status and male gender was the strongest predictor of a disposition to sell. 32 of all respondents (18%) supported legalising a regulated kidney market. This attitude was not associated with a disposition to sell a kidney. 5 respondents (2.8%) endorsed a market and considered providing a kidney to a stranger if and only if paid. 4 of those 5 would sell only under financial duress. CONCLUSIONS: Current understanding of a regulated kidney market is insufficient. It is unclear whether a regulated market would result in a net gain of kidneys. Most possible kidney vendors would only sell in a particularly difficult financial situation, raising concerns about the validity of consent and inequities in the provision of organs. Further empirical and normative analysis of these issues is required. Any calls to implement and evaluate a regulated kidney market in pilot studies are therefore premature
    corecore