The World Medical Association has announced that a new revision process of the Declaration of Helsinki has been started. This article will identify the criticisms that have been made in the bioethics literature, particularly since the last revision. In addition, criticisms are discussed that were made in the literature even before the last revision and have not fallen silent. The plausibility of the recommendation for a change in the Declaration of Helsinki is examined.

Codes of medical ethics (codes) are part of a longstanding tradition in which physicians publicly state their core values and commitments to patients, peers, and the public. However, codes are not static. Using the historical evolution of the Canadian Medical Association\'s Code of Ethics as an illustrative case, we argue that codes are living, socio-historically situated documents that comprise a mix of prescriptive and aspirational content. Reflecting their socio-historical situation, we can expect the upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic to prompt calls to revise codes. Indeed, Alex John London has argued in favour of specific modifications to the World Medical Association\'s International Code of Medical Ethics (which has since been revised) in light of moral and scientific failures that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responding to London, we address the more general question: should codes be modified to reflect lessons drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic or future such upheavals? We caution that codes face limitations as instruments of policy change because they are inherently interpretive and \'multivocal\', that is, they usually underdetermine or provide more than one answer to the question, \'What should I do now?\' Nonetheless, as both prescriptive and aspirational documents, codes also serve as tools for reflection and deliberation-collective practices that are necessary to engaging with and addressing the moral and scientific uncertainties inherent to medicine.

暂无摘要。

The Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association are compared in terms of content and origin. Their relevance for current medical practice is investigated. The status which is ascribed to these documents will be shown and the status which they can reasonably claim to have will be explored. Arguments in favor of the Hippocratic Oath that rely on historical stability or historical origin are being examined. It is demonstrated that they get caught up in paradoxes. Should doctors swear the Hippocratic Oath or the Declaration of Geneva? The Hippocratic Oath is a remarkable historic document, which contains important elements still relevant for medical ethics today. Its interpretation as a timeless, still valid medical code is unfounded. The historical arguments, that should justify its validity, are untenable. The Declaration of Geneva, and not the Hippocratic Oath, can legitimately claim to come close to representing the most important principles of professional medical conduct in today\'s globalised world.

Some of the recent criticisms published during and after the last revision process of the Declaration of Helsinki are directed at its basic legitimacy. In this article we want to have a closer look at the two criticisms we consider to be the most fundamental. The first criticism questions the legitimate authorship of the World Medical Association to publish a document such as the Declaration. The second fundamental criticism we want to examine argues that the last revision process failed to meet the standards for fair, democratic procedures. Although both criticisms deny the formal legitimacy of the Declaration in the most fundamental way, they have never been addressed in detail in a single article. We refute most of the related arguments. However, acknowledging some of the points made, improvements for future revision processes and versions of the Declaration of Helsinki are outlined.

In October 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki was revised a seventh time in its 50 year history. While it is the most widely accepted set of ethical principles for the protection of patients participating in medical research, the Declaration of Helsinki has also been subject of constant controversy. In particular, its paragraph on the use of placebo controls in clinical trials divides the research community into active-control and placebo orthodox proponents, both continuously demanding revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki in favour of their position. The goal of the present project is to compare the mainly theoretical controversy with regulatory implementation.
We distributed a questionnaire to national drug regulatory authorities from different countries to collect information on the authorities\' respective approaches to interpretation and implementation of the Declarations\' placebo paragraph in the conduct of medical research.
Our findings suggest that the majority of drug regulatory authorities have established a practice of a middle ground, allowing placebo controls in some instances. Various interpretations of \"serious harm\" and \"methodological reasons\" are proposed as well as safeguards to avoid abuse of the option to use placebo-controls.
Leaving the placebo paragraph open to various interpretation is a result of the Declaration of Helsinki\'s character as a guidance document. With the current version controversy will continue. The Declaration should be continued to be strengthened to enforce the appreciation of conducting medical research with the highest ethical standard.

The Declaration of Geneva is one of the core documents of medical ethics. A revision process was started by the World Medical Association (WMA) in 2016. The WMA has also used this occasion to examine how the Declaration of Geneva is used in countries throughout the world by conducting a survey of all WMA constituent members. The findings are highly important and raise urgent questions for the World Medical Association and its National Medical Associations (NMA): The Declaration of Geneva is only rarely used as an oath text despite the fact that physicians\' oaths are generally widespread. This is not consistent with the intention and claim of the Declaration of Geneva. The article then discusses three questions. Should there be one single binding oath? Which organization should be responsible for such an oath? Which oath is the most obvious candidate? In a globalized world and despite all cultural diversity, the medical profession should have one core moral basis which is binding for physicians all over the world. The most obvious candidate for an oath incorporating this moral basis is the Declaration of Geneva.

How death should be measured was a subject of intense debate during the late 1960s, and one in which transplant surgeons had a particular interest. Legislation required a doctor to first pronounce \'extinct\' the patients from whom \'spare parts\' were sought for grafting. But transplant surgeons increasingly argued the moment of death was less important than was the moment of establishing that a patient was beyond the point of no return in dying, at which time she or he should be passed to the transplant team. This raised concerns that people identified as being a potential source of organs might not be adequately cared for in their own right. In 1968 the World Medical Association issued an international statement on death at its meeting in Sydney, Australia following a debate between delegates about how and by whom death should be assessed prior to organ removal. Soon afterwards Australian surgeons performed two of the one hundred and five heart transplants carried out around the world that year, dubbed by the New York Times to be one during which an \'international epidemic\' of such grafts were carried out. This essay examines debates about death and transplanting, then analyses the pioneering Australian heart transplants, in the context of the Declaration of Sydney and continuing international discussions about whether these operations were moral and legal.

暂无摘要。

The objective was to examine the hypothesis that primary unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss might be associated with an inappropriate immunologically mediated response to progesterone and/or estrogen. This prospective study included 47 women with two or more documented consecutive early pregnancy losses of unknown etiology, and no previous history of deliveries. Intradermal skin testing was performed in the luteal phase of the cycle (days 16-20) using estradiol benzoate, progesterone, and a placebo of refined sesame oil. Immediate (20 min) and late (24h and 1 week) skin test readings for all cases were compared with those of 12 parous women of comparable age with no history of spontaneous miscarriages, premenstrual disorders, pregnancy, or sex hormone-related allergic or autoimmune diseases. Main outcome measure was skin test reactivity to estradiol and/or progesterone. Immediate skin test reactivity to both hormones was observed among half of the cases at 20 min. A papule after 24h, which persisted for up to 1 week, was observed among 32 (68.1%) and 34 (72.3%) cases at the sites of estrogen and progesterone injection, respectively. 55.3% of cases had combined skin test reactivity to both estradiol and progesterone at 1 week. All women in the control group showed absence of skin test reactivity for both estradiol and progesterone at 20 min, 24h, and 1 week. None of the subjects in either group showed skin test reactivity to placebo. There is an association between primary unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss and skin test reactivity to female sex hormones.