The concise argument.
The concise argument.
复制标题
简洁的论证。
DOI：
10.1136/medethics-2019-106045
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Frith L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frith L
方案干预。因此，该评估不会对患者或使用者造成更大的伤害风险。然而，Weijer等人指出，“研究人员与政府合作，随机分组干预或控制条件，以便严格评估该计划。”因此，这些计划没有像往常一样实施。由此得出的结论是，伦理评估和程序，如渥太华声明等指南中规定的，是触发的，因此沃森等人没有理由声称不然。这是一个关于研究伦理的重要辩论，什么是适当的伦理监督将取决于对干预的精细分类。对特定环境的敏感性是至关重要的，这样审批就不会对研究项目强加一个“一刀切”的模板，正如人们经常指出的那样，这是伦理审批程序经常遇到的问题。11除了鼓励以回复和评论文章的形式进行辩论外，见对Riisfeldt文章的回复，12-16削弱安乐死、姑息性阿片类药物使用和姑息性镇静之间的道德区别17和他的回复，18我们还鼓励医学生和相关学科的学生向该杂志投稿。在本期中，我们有一篇柯南的学生论文，关于经常被忽视的现实道德生物增强干预。19在这篇论文中，柯南认为，某些生物增强，如经颅直流电刺激内侧和背侧前额叶皮层，以及补充锂和omega-3，有可能减少反社会行为，减少种族偏见，增加执行功能，增加亲社会特征，如公平和利他主义。他认为，这些干预措施在道德上是可以接受的，在实践上也是可行的，并探讨了实施这些措施的方法，“特别是对暴力罪犯和公务员——前者是为了康复，后者是为了达到他们职业的高标准。”19本期的这些论文和其他论文展示了一系列令人印象深刻的方法论方向和主题，以及在新的十年开始之际，生物伦理学如何为解决全球医疗保健系统面临的挑战做出重要的实践和方法论贡献。
the programme intervention. Thus, the evaluation places no greater risk of harm to patients or users. Weijer et al, however, state,‘researchers collaborate with the government to randomise clusters to intervention or control conditions in order to rigorously evaluate the programme.’10 and therefore the programmes are not implemented as usual. What follows from this is that ethical evaluations and procedures, as set out in guidance such as the Ottawa statement, are triggered and therefore Watson et al are not justified in claiming otherwise. This is an important debate for research ethics and what is appropriate ethical oversight will depend on a finely grained categorisation of the intervention. A sensitivity to the specific context is crucial, so that approvals do not impose a ‘one-size-fits-all’template on research projects and, as has been often noted, this is something that ethical approval procedures have often struggled with. 11 Along with encouraging debate in the form of responses and commentaries on articles, see the responses to Riisfeldt’s article, 12–16 Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation 17 and his reply, 18 we also encourage medical students and students of related disciplines to submit to the journal. In this issue we have a student essay by Conan, on frequently overlooked realistic moral bio-enhancement interventions. 19 In this paper Conan argues that certain bio-enhancements such as transcranial direct current stimulation over the medial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, as well as supplementation with lithium and omega-3, have the potential to reduce antisocial behaviour, reduce racial bias, increase executive function and increase prosocial traits like fairness and altruism. He argues that these interventions are both ethically acceptable and practically feasible and explores ways these should be implemented,‘especially for violent offenders and public servants—the former as rehabilitation and the latter to meet the high standards of their occupations.’19 These and the other papers in this issue demonstrate an impressive range of methodological orientations and topics and how, at the start of a new decade, bioethics is well placed to make significant practical and methodological contributions to addressing the challenges that face healthcare systems across the globe.