Year:

  1. Harm, Truth, and the Nocebo Effect.Dien Ho - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (2):236-245.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  1
    Commentary: Should the Belmont Report Be Extended to Animal Research.Bernardo Aguilera & David Wendler - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):58-66.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. O Tempora! O Mores! The Place of Boni Mores in Dignity Discourse.Jonathan Brown - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):144-155.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Commentary: A Belmont Report for Animals: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.Alka Chandna - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):46-53.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  9
    The Ethics of Medical AI and the Physician-Patient Relationship.Sally Dalton-Brown - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):115-121.
    :This article considers recent ethical topics relating to medical AI. After a general discussion of recent medical AI innovations, and a more analytic look at related ethical issues such as data privacy, physician dependency on poorly understood AI helpware, bias in data used to create algorithms post-GDPR, and changes to the patient–physician relationship, the article examines the issue of so-called robot doctors. Whereas the so-called democratization of healthcare due to health wearables and increased access to medical information might suggest a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  1
    Reevaluating Benefits in the Moral Justification of Animal Research: A Comment on “Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research”.Matthias Eggel, Carolyn P. Neuhaus & Herwig Grimm - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):131-143.
    :In a recent paper in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics on the necessary conditions for morally responsible animal research David DeGrazia and Jeff Sebo claim that the key requirements for morally responsible animal research are an assertion of sufficient net benefit, a worthwhile-life condition, and a no-unnecessary-harm condition. With regards to the assertion of sufficient net benefit, the authors claim that morally responsible research offers unique benefits to humans that outweigh the costs and harms to humans and animals. In this (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  10
    A Belmont Report for Animals?—Erratum.Hope Ferdowsian, L. Syd M. Johnson, Jane Johnson, Andrew Fenton, Adam Shriver & John Gluck - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):19-37.
    :Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  8.  5
    A Belmont Report for Animals?—Erratum.Hope Ferdowsian, L. Syd M. Johnson, Jane Johnson, Andrew Fenton, Adam Shriver & John Gluck - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):163-163.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9.  9
    In Memoriam. Dan Callahan: Writing a Life in Bioethics.Joseph J. Fins - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):4-8.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  3
    Commentary: Other Animals as Kin and Persons Worthy of Increased Ethical Consideration.Agustín Fuentes - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):38-41.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  4
    Xenia: Refugees, Displaced Persons and Reciprocity.John Harris - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):9-17.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  12
    The Immoral Machine.John Harris - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):71-79.
    :In a recent paper in Nature1 entitled The Moral Machine Experiment, Edmond Awad, et al. make a number of breathtakingly reckless assumptions, both about the decisionmaking capacities of current so-called “autonomous vehicles” and about the nature of morality and the law. Accepting their bizarre premise that the holy grail is to find out how to obtain cognizance of public morality and then program driverless vehicles accordingly, the following are the four steps to the Moral Machinists argument:1)Find out what “public morality” (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  2
    Commentary: Trust but Verify.Lisa Jones-Engel - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):42-45.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  4
    Giving Children a Say Without Giving Them a Choice: Obtaining Affirmation of a Child’s Non-Dissent to Participation in Nonbeneficial Research.Holly Kantin - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):80-97.
    :To what extent, if any, should minors have a say about whether they participate in research that offers them no prospect of direct benefit? This article addresses this question as it pertains to minors who cannot understand enough about what their participation would involve to make an autonomous choice, but can comprehend enough to have and express opinions about participating. The first aim is to defend David Wendler and Seema Shah’s claim that minors who meet this description should not be (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  2
    A Dashboard to Improve the Alignment of Healthcare Organization Decisionmaking to Core Values and Mission Statement.Timothy Lahey & William Nelson - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):156-162.
    :The mission and value statements of healthcare organizations serve as the foundational philosophy that informs all aspects of the organization. The ultimate goal is seamless alignment of values to mission in a way that colors the overall life and culture of the organization. However, full alignment between healthcare organizational values and mission in a fashion that influences the daily life and culture of healthcare organizations does not always occur. Grounded in the belief that a lack of organizational alignment to explicit (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  1
    Commentary: On The Moral Bindingness of Advance Directives.Stephen Latham - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):110-114.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  2
    Commentary: A Belmont Report for Animals? Rights or Welfare?Lori Marino - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):67-70.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. Advance Healthcare Directives: Binding or Informational Value?Gianluca Montanari Vergallo - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):98-109.
    :Advance directives entail a refusal expressed by a still-healthy patient. Three consequences stem from that fact: advance refusal is unspecific, since it is impossible to predict what the patient’s conditions and the risk-benefit ratio may be in the foreseeable future; those decisions cannot be as well informed as those formulated while the disease is in progress; while both current consent and refusal can be revoked as the disease unfolds, until the treatment starts out, advance directives become effective when the patient (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  4
    Commentary: On the Moral Foundations of Animal Welfare.Bernard E. Rollin & Matthew S. Hickey - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):54-57.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  4
    Modelling the Social Dynamics of Moral Enhancement: Social Strategies Sold Over-the-Counter and the Stability of Society—ADDENDUM.Anders Sandberg & Joao Fabiano - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):164-164.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21.  2
    Is Human Enhancement in Space a Moral Duty? Missions to Mars, Advanced AI and Genome Editing in Space.Konrad Szocik - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):122-130.
    :Any space program involving long-term human missions will have to cope with serious risks to human health and life. Because currently available countermeasures are insufficient in the long term, there is a need for new, more radical solutions. One possibility is a program of human enhancement for future deep space mission astronauts. This paper discusses the challenges for long-term human missions of a space environment, opening the possibility of serious consideration of human enhancement and a fully automated space exploration, based (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues