Using medical advances to enhance human athletic, aesthetic, and cognitive performance, rather than to treat disease, has been controversial. Little is known about physicians? experiences, views, and attitudes in this regard. We surveyed a national sample of physicians to determine how often they prescribe enhancements, their views on using medicine for enhancement, and whether they would be willing to prescribe a series of potential interventions that might be considered enhancements. We find that many physicians occasionally prescribe enhancements, but doctors hold (...) nuanced and ambiguous views of these issues. Most express concerns about the potential effects of enhancements on social equity, yet many also believe specific enhancements that are safe and effective should be available but not covered by insurance. These apparently contradictory views might reflect inherent tensions between the values of equity and liberty, which could make crafting coherent social policies on medical enhancements challenging. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of American Journal of Bioethics for the following free supplemental resource(s): An additional table (Table 5) referred to on p. 5]. (shrink)

Although many physicians have been using the internet for both clinical and social purposes for years, recently concerns have been raised regarding blurred boundaries of the profession as a whole. In both the news media and medical literature, physicians have noted there are unanswered questions in these areas, and that professional self-regulation is needed. This report discusses the ethical implications of physicians’ nonclinical use of the internet, including the use of social networking sites, blogs, and other means to post content (...) online. It does not address the clinical use of the internet, such as telemedicine, e-prescribing, online clinical consultations, health-related websites, use of electronic media for clinical collaboration, and e-mailing patients (some of which are already covered in the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics). (shrink)

Healthcare in the United States is most often described and experienced as an immense, convoluted industry with a sum greater than its parts. However, it is important to remember that these parts are distinct, autonomous individuals and entities with their own beliefs, customs, and viewpoints. Moral issues surface abundantly in healthcare due to its interconnectedness with human life with enhanced proximity during life’s beginning and end. Therefore, these individual beliefs are prone to clashing as seen in three key relationships: between (...) patient and provider, between providers, and between industry and providers. While this is both to be expected and respected, it is important to remember that all individuals and entities involved in healthcare do have one major duty in common – the welfare of the patient. Unfortunately, legislature at both the state and federal levels and organizational policies have been too willing to endanger the welfare of patients for the sake of balancing the individual consciences involved. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 7, Page 58-59, July 2012.

Infertile women in the developing world face an additional layer of vulnerability compared to their counterparts in the developed world due to social, cultural, political, and socioeconomic factors that truly render their infertility a disability. After exploring how infertility in the developing world fits the World Health Organization’s biopsychosocial model of disability, we will argue that feminists and disability rights proponents should jointly articulate and advocate for change.

Congenitally infertile woman such as those with Turner syndrome or Mayer Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome have available the technologies of oocyte harvestation, cryropreservation, in-vitro fertilization, and gestational surrogacy in order to have genetically related offspring. Since congenital infertility results in a variety of experiences that impacts on nearly every aspect of a person’s life, in the future it is possible that these women might desire a congenitally infertile child through the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis so as to share this common bond. (...) While infertility results in a relatively normal quality of life, it is morally wrong to necessitate the future use of infertility services with its variable success rate on a child. Also, whereas the woman has fundamental reproductive autonomy, she lacks the substantive autonomy regarding the specific characteristics of her child. Finally, the infertile community does exhibit a strong presence, but it lacks characteristics that define it as a culture. (shrink)