When we applied for the editorship of the JME 7 years ago, we said that we considered the JME to be the most important journal in medicine. The most profound questions that health professionals face are not scientific or technical, but ethical. Our enormous scientific and medical progress already outstrips our capability to provide treatment. Life can be prolonged at enormous cost, sometimes far beyond the point that the individual appears to be gaining a net benefit from that life. Science (...) can tell us how to achieve something, but it cannot tell us whether we should achieve that end—whether it is good. For that, we need ethics. Ethics grows in importance as our technology creates new possibilities. Where there are no options, there are no ethical questions. However, once there are options, there arise pressing questions about whether to pursue them. We require values and principles to decide how to use medicine and science. During the last 7 years, issues like the creation of brain organoids, human non-human chimeras, mitochondrial transfer, gene editing of embryos and in vitro gametogenesis have grown in prominence. These raise deep questions about moral status and how it should be determined, the limits of modification of humans, and what is good in life. As editors of the JME, we are proud of our small contribution to thinking about these challenges. We are grateful to the hard work of our associate editors and administrative staff, but there is still much more to do. During our term as editors, we have published papers from diverse perspectives, on a wide range of topics. We have seen vigorous debate within the pages of the journal and have often sought to deliberately encourage that debate …. (shrink)

The field of Paediatric Bioethics, or ethical issues applied to children's healthcare, is relatively new but has recently gained an increased professional and public profile. Clinical ethics support to health professionals and patients who face ethical challenges in clinical practice varies between and within institutions. Literature regarding services available to paediatricians is sparse in specialist tertiary centres and almost absent in general paediatrics. We performed a mixed-methods study using online surveys and focus groups to explore the experiences of ethical and (...) legal dilemmas and the support structures available to (i) paediatric intensive care teams as a proxy for specialist children's centres and (ii) paediatricians working in the general setting in the UK. Our main findings illustrate the broad range of ethical and legal challenges experienced by both groups in daily practice. Ethics training and the availability of ethics support were variable in structure, processes, funding and availability, e.g., 70% of paediatric intensive care consultants reported access to formal ethics advice versus 20% general paediatricians. Overall, our findings suggest a need for ethics support and training in both settings. The broad experience reported of ethics support, where it existed, was good – though improvements were suggested. Many clinicians were concerned about their relationship with children and families experiencing a challenging ethical situation, partly as a result of high-profile recent legal cases in the media. Further research in this area would help collect a broader range of views to inform clinical ethics support's development to better support paediatric teams, children and their families. (shrink)