Abstract The history of research in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities has been marked by unethical practices, resulting in mistrust and reluctance to participate in research. Harms are not limited to individual persons—tribal communities experience harmful misrepresentation and generalizations disrespectful of AI/AN groups’ heritage, cultures, and beliefs. The Belmont Report’s research

Abstract While the accumulation and increased circulation of genomic data have captured much attention over the past decade, privacy risks raised by the diversification and integration of omics have been largely overlooked. In this paper, we propose the outline of a framework for assessing privacy risks in multi-omic research and databases. Following a comparison of privacy risks associated with genomic

Abstract Historically, laws and policies to criminalize drug use or possession were rooted in explicit racism, and they continue to wreak havoc on certain racialized communities. We are a group of bioethicists, drug experts, legal scholars, criminal justice researchers, sociologists, psychologists, and other allied professionals who have come together in support of a policy proposal that is evidence-based

Abstract In 2019, several US states passed “heartbeat” bills. Should such bills go into effect, they would outlaw abortion once an embryonic heartbeat can be detected, thereby severely limiting an individual’s access to abortion. Many states allow health care professionals to refuse to provide an abortion for reasons of conscience. Yet heartbeat bills do not include a positive conscience clause that

Abstract The development of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine raises fundamental ethical issues. As one example, AI systems in the field of mental health successfully detect signs of mental disorders, such as depression, by using data from social media. These AI depression detectors (AIDDs) identify users who are at risk of depression prior to any contact with the healthcare system. The article

Abstract In this article, I defend a discomfiting thesis: The clinical ethicist should sometimes be an active participant in the deception of patients and families. The case for this conclusion builds off Sissela Bok’s seminal analysis of lying, from which I emphasize that, despite some common intuitions to the contrary, there is prima facie no morally relevant difference between lies of omission and

(2021). Don’t Blame Hippocrates for Low Enrollment in Clinical Trials. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-3.

Abstract Statements of the core ethical and professional responsibilities of medical professionals are incomplete in ways that threaten fundamental goals of medicine. First, in the absence of explicit guidance for responding to cases in which there is significant uncertainty or disagreement about the relative therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic merits of available interventions they perpetuate

(2021). The Duty to Support Learning Health Systems: A Broad Rather than a Narrow Interpretation. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 14-16.

(2021). Broadening the Scope of Moral Responsibility of Clinicians: What Medical Ethics Can Learn from Public Health Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 17-19.

(2021). Cracking the Code: COVID-19 and the Future of Professional Promises. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 19-21.

(2021). In Science We Trust? Being Honest About the Limits of Medical Research During COVID-19. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 22-24.

(2021). Expert Communication and the Self-Defeating Codes of Scientific Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 24-26.

(2021). The Consequences of Access to Unproven Treatments: Medical Ethics Didn’t Create the Problem, and It Isn’t the Solution. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 27-29.

(2021). Standardize or Adapt? Treatment Diversity as an Ethical Issue. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 29-31.

(2021). Codes of Ethics, Human Rights and Forced Migration. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 31-33.

Abstract Human brain research is moving into a dilemma. The best way to understand how the human brain works is to study living human brains in living human beings, but ethical and legal standards make it difficult to do powerful research with actual human beings. So neuroscientists have developed four types of surrogates for living human brains in human bodies: genetically edited non-human animals

(2021). Brain Surrogates—Empty or Full Makes the Difference. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 46-48.

(2021). Scientific and Ethical Uncertainties in Brain Organoid Research. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 48-51.

(2021). Testing the Correlates of Consciousness in Brain Organoids: How Do We Know and What Do We Do? The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 51-53.

(2021). Against the Precautionary Approach to Moral Status: The Case of Surrogates for Living Human Brains. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 53-56.

(2021). Neural Organoids and the Precautionary Principle. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 56-58.

(2021). The Moral Relevance of Humanization. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 59-61.

(2021). Philosophy is Still Missing from the Human-Mouse Chimera Debate. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 61-63.

(2021). Responding to Human Brain Surrogates Research: The Value of Empirical Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 64-66.

(2021). Human Brain Surrogates: Models or Distortions? The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 66-68.

(2021). A Sickle-Cell Patient Displaced by the Pandemic: Is a Request for Opioids Legitimate, or Sign of a Deeper Problems? The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 69-70.

(2021). When Doctors Refuse to Prescribe Opiates to a Patient in Pain: How Healthcare Ethics Consultants Can Be Most Effective. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 71-73.

(2021). Justice and the Ethical Response to Suffering. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 73-75.

(2021). “I’m in Pain; Why Don’t You Believe Me?” Pain Management in Sickle Cell Disease. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 75-77.

(2021). Relational Autonomy in an Era of Limited Visitation: What’s a Son, Mother, and Medical Team to Do? The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 78-79.

(2021). Communication as Compassion. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 80-82.

(2021). A Crisis of Compromised Companionship in the Time of COVID-19. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 82-84.

(2021). The Centrality of Relational Autonomy and Compassion Fatigue in the COVID-19 Era. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 84-86.

(2021). Response to Open Peer Commentaries for “There’s No Harm in Talking: Reestablishing the Relationship Between Theological and Secular Bioethics”. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. W1-W3.

(2021). A Review of “Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships”. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. W4-W6.

(2021). Correction. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. W7-W7.

Abstract Secular clinical ethics has responded to the problem of moral pluralism with a procedural approach. However, defining this term stirs debate: H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. has championed a contentless proceduralism (P1), while others, conversely, argue for a proceduralism that permits some content in the form of moral claims (P2). This paper argues that the content P2 permits ought to be expanded

Abstract This article argues that supported decision making is ideal for people with dynamic cognitive and functional impairments that place them at the margins of autonomy. First, we argue that guardianship and similar surrogate decision-making frameworks may be inappropriate for people with dynamic impairments. Second, we provide a conceptual foundation for supported decision making for individuals

Abstract Eating disorders are mental illnesses that can have a significant and persistent physical impact, especially for those who are not treated early in their disease trajectory. Although many persons with eating disorders may make a full recovery, some may not; this is especially the case when it comes to persons with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SEAN), namely, those who have had anorexia

Abstract In 2002, the Dutch Euthanasia Act was put in place to regulate the ending of one’s life, permitting a physician to provide assistance in dying to a patient whose suffering the physician assesses as unbearable. Currently, a debate in the Netherlands concerns whether healthy (older) people who value their life as completed should have access to assistance in dying based on their autonomous decision

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a substantial human, social and economic toll globally, but its impact on Black/African Americans, Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native communities in the U.S. is unconscionable. As the U.S. continues to combat the current COVID-19 cycle and prepares for future pandemics, it will be critical to learn from and rectify past and contemporary wrongs. Drawing

Abstract Precision medicine relies on data and biospecimens from participants who willingly offer their personal information on the promise that this act will ultimately result in knowledge that will improve human health. Drawing on anthropological framings of the “gift,” this paper contextualizes participation in precision medicine as inextricable from social relationships and their ongoing ethical

Abstract Like many fields, bioethics has been constrained to thinking to race in terms of colorblindness, the idea that ideal deliberation would ignore race and hence prevent bias. There are practical and ethically significant problems with colorblind approaches to ethical deliberation, and important reasons why race is ethically relevant. Future discourse needs to understand how and why race is relevant

Abstract Events in 2020 have sparked a reimagination of how both individuals and institutions should consider race, power, health, and marginalization in society. In a response to these developments, we examine the current and past limitations of the ways in which bioethicists have considered race and, more generally, discourses of marginalization. We argue that the foundational principle of justice

Abstract In early 2020, a number of countries developed and published intensive care triage guidelines for the pandemic. Several of those guidelines, especially in the UK, encouraged the explicit assessment of clinical frailty as part of triage. Frailty is relevant to resource allocation in at least three separate ways, through its impact on probability of survival, longevity and quality of life (though

(2020). Correction. The American Journal of Bioethics. Ahead of Print.

Abstract The genome between socially constructed racial groups is 99.5%–99.9% identical; the 0.1%–0.5% variation between any two unrelated individuals is greatest between individuals in the same racial group; and there are no identifiable racial genomic clusters. Nevertheless, race continues to be used as a biological reality in health disparities research, medical guidelines, and standards of care

(2020). The Social Context of Religion in the Jurisdictions of Bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 1-4.

Abstract Theological and secular voices in bioethics have drifted into separate silos. Such a separation results in part from (1) theologians focusing less on conveying ideas in ways that contribute to a pluralistic and public bioethical discourse and (2) the dwindling receptivity of religious arguments within secular bioethics. This essay works against these drifts by putting forward an argument that

(2020). Purely Faith-Based vs. Rationally-Informed Theological Bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 14-16.

(2020). Pluralism in the Jewish Ethical Tradition. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 16-18.

(2020). The Devil in the Details. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 18-20.

(2020). Vulnerable Life: Reflections on the Relationship Between Theological and Philosophical Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 21-23.

(2020). Ethical Analysis and Beyond! How Christian Anthropology and the Concept of Dignity Can Also Address Moral Distress in End-of-Life Care. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 23-25.

(2020). A Data-Driven Argument in Bioethics: Why Theologically Grounded Concepts May Not Provide the Necessary Intellectual Resources to Discuss Inequality and Injustice in Healthcare Contexts. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 25-28.

(2020). Public Reason as the Way for Dialogue. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 29-31.

(2020). “‘There’s No Harm in Talking’…True…But It Depends on How We Talk and What We Then Do”. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 32-34.

(2020). What’s Missing in Secular Bioethics? The False Dichotomy between “the Secular” and “the Theological”. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 34-37.

(2020). Community, Complicity, and Critique: Christian Concepts in Secular Bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 37-39.