We respond to Autumn Fiester\'s critique that our proposed bioethical consensus project amounts to \"ethical hegemony,\" and evaluate her claim that ethicists should restrict themselves to \"mere process\" recommendations. We argue that content recommendations are an inescapable aspect of clinical ethics consultation, and our primary concern is that, without standardization of bioethical consensus, our field will vacillate among appeals to the disparate claims in the 22 \"Core References,\" unsustainable efforts to defend value-neutral process recommendations, or become a practice of Lone Ranger clinical ethicists. We contend that a consensus document that captures the basic moral commitments of patients and careproviders is the next step in the professional evolution of our field.

One of the most significant and persistent debates in secular clinical ethics is the question of ethics expertise, which asks whether ethicists can make justified moral recommendations in active patient cases. A critical point of contention in the ethics expertise debate is whether there is, in fact, a bioethical consensus upon which secular ethicists can ground their recommendations and whether there is, in principle, a way of justifying such a consensus in a morally pluralistic context. In a series of recent articles in this journal, Janet Malek defends a positive view of ethics expertise, claiming that secular ethicists should comport their recommendations with bioethical consensus. In response, Nick Colgrove and Kelly Kate Evans deny the existence of a secular bioethical consensus; question why, even if it did exist, consensus should be considered a reliable way of resolving bioethical questions; and recommend a friendlier approach to clinical ethics based on the thought of H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. In this article, I respond to Colgrove and Evans on all three points. In part one, I show there is a secular bioethical consensus but note it could be better consolidated and created through a more systematic and inclusive process. In part two, I argue that bioethical consensus is morally justified but note that this justification cannot be plausibly based upon claims that it only invokes moral principles available to or shared by all. In part three, I argue Engelhardt\'s approach cannot be described as \"friendlier\" to clinical ethics because it is incompatible with many current healthcare laws and policies.

This document is designed to give guidance on assessing researchers in bioethics/medical ethics. It is intended to assist members of selection, confirmation and promotion committees, who are required to assess those conducting bioethics research when they are not from a similar disciplinary background. It does not attempt to give guidance on the quality of bioethics research, as this is a matter for peer assessment. Rather it aims to give an indication of the type, scope and amount of research that is the expected in this field. It does not cover the assessment of other activities such as teaching, policy work, clinical ethics consultation and so on, but these will be mentioned for additional context. Although it mentions the UK\'s Research Excellence Framework (REF), it is not intended to be a detailed analysis of the place of bioethics in the REF.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research has released its updated guidelines for stem cell research in order to provide \"assurance that stem cell research is conducted with scientific and ethical integrity and that new therapies are evidence-based.\" The guidelines were updated by a Guidelines Update Task Force consisting of twenty-five scientists, ethicists and experts in health care policy from nine countries. The chairpersons of this task force are Jonathan Kimmelman, George Daley and Insoo Hyun. There is no representative from India; the only person of Indian origin on it, Mahendra Rao, represents The New York Stem Cell Foundation.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

CIOMS has been criticised for not adequately consulting stakeholders about its revised ethical guidelines regarding medical research. Political and logistical issues that arise in democratic processes and open exchange of information probably contributed to this exclusion. What might CIOMS have done to be more inclusive and attain broader consensus on its proposed revisions? Consensus is dynamic, and evolves as a community digests new information and perspectives. Engaging the public (and particularly the stakeholders) in discussion about the revisions would have generated broader consensus. It would have encouraged more stakeholders (i.e. researchers, potential research participants, research institutions, or governments) to buy in. CIOMS needs a process to encourage dialogue and stakeholder input. The CIOMS guidelines themselves promote stakeholder consultation and capacity building, but CIOMS has done relatively little to distribute or promote its own guidelines. CIOMS should do more to promote its revised guidelines, and engage stakeholders in dialogue. This paper explores the bioethics debate about universal and relative values to illustrate the value of consultation and consensus building. It concludes that like research sponsors, CIOMS and similar organisations have an ethical responsibility to facilitate capacity building in less developed areas, and to participate more actively in consensus building.

暂无摘要。

Practicing doctors see things differently from bioethicists, argues David L Schiedermayer, in his response to Cameron\'s essay. Patient autonomy and informed consent figure more importantly in ethical debate than they do in actual practice. Clinicians work with a practical ethic of beneficence that is directly related to diagnosis and treatment.