MetaFilter posts tagged with ethics and Medicine

First, do no harm

anigbrowl — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:29:49 -0800

Was it triage or murder? A disturbing NY Times story about the choices made by certain medical staff at a New Orleans hospital during Hurricane Katrina. Long and not easy reading.

Neurosecurity

homunculus — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:29:23 -0800

Neurosecurity: security and privacy for neural devices. "An increasing number of neural implantable devices will become available in the near future due to advances in neural engineering. This discipline holds the potential to improve many patients' lives dramatically by offering improved—and in some cases entirely new—forms of rehabilitation for conditions ranging from missing limbs to degenerative cognitive diseases. The use of standard engineering practices, medical trials, and neuroethical evaluations during the design process can create systems that are safe and that follow ethical guidelines; unfortunately, none of these disciplines currently ensure that neural devices are robust against adversarial entities trying to exploit these devices to alter, block, or eavesdrop on neural signals. The authors define 'neurosecurity'—a version of computer science security principles and methods applied to neural engineering—and discuss why neurosecurity should be a critical consideration in the design of future neural devices." [Via Mind Hacks]

Dignity and Bioethics

homunculus — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:35:43 -0800

The Stupidity of Dignity: Conservative bioethics' latest, most dangerous ploy. Steven Pinker reviews Human Dignity and Bioethics, the latest report from the President's Council on Bioethics. dgaicun posted Pinker's article in the Leon Kass vs. ice-cream thread, but I think it and the report deserve their own post.

We've Replaced The Patient's Blood With PolyHeme. Let's See If They Notice.

scrump — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:54:31 -0800

The blood substitute PolyHeme has been previously discussed on MetaFilter, but new evidence shows that PolyHeme actually raises the chances of death by nearly 30%. PolyHeme was notable mostly for the reaction to its clinical trials, which, controversially, did not require patient consent.

Link works? Check. Dupe? No, maybe. Best of Web? ..suure

Gyan — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 06:14:45 -0800

The Checklist - "If a new drug were as effective at saving lives as Peter Pronovost’s checklist, there would be a nationwide marketing campaign urging doctors to use it" [single page]

Do Not Resuscitate

amyms — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:47:46 -0800

Do Not Resuscitate. "For families facing the impending death of a loved one, few topics trigger more anguish than the Do Not Resuscitate order... There is little ambiguity in a DNR order: Emergency medical staff must withhold CPR and other life-reviving treatments if the patient's heart or breathing stops, allowing death." But, DNR orders aren't always cut-and-dried. There are many situations that complicate the medical professional's decision to comply. Related: Some people have opted to get a "D.N.R." tattoo, but others have wondered if it will hold up in court as a legal directive. [First link Via].

Genetic discrimination

homunculus — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:10:54 -0800

U.S. military practices genetic discrimination in denying benefits. "Those medically discharged with genetic diseases are left without disability or retirement benefits. Some are fighting back."

Be my, be my baby. Or, you know his.

Sticherbeast — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:06:30 -0800

Paternity Discrepancy. "My little boy was there, he was up at bat, and I started yelling for him, 'Go Matthew [not his real name]! Knock it out of the park!' And another man started screaming for Matthew. Louder than me. I looked over, and I looked at him, and I was like, Who is this guy? And I looked at my son, and I looked at him … and they were identical."

Bad medicine

daksya — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:43:56 -0800

The problem of fake pharmaceutical drugs

Just Say No To Drugs (Reps)

Gyan — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:57:06 -0800

Just Say No To Drug Reps.

Examining Bush's stem cell policy, two years later.

skallas — Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:52:23 -0800

Examining Bush's stem cell policy, two years later. Kinsley: Put it all together, and the stem cells that can squeeze through Bush's loopholes are far less promising than they seemed two years ago, while the general promise of embryonic stem cells burns brighter than ever. If you claim to have made an anguished moral decision, and the factual basis for that decision turns out to be faulty, you ought to reconsider or your claim to moral anguish looks phony. But Bush's moral anguish was suspect from the beginning, because the policy it produced makes no sense.

Lets have a rational discussion

TedW — Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:39:58 -0800

Organ donation has become a hot topic on Me Fi lately. Unfortunately, this thread has not spawned the best discussion. But the ethics of organ tansplantation can become difficult. Do donors have the right to specify who gets their organs? If they do, what does that imply for living donors; in other words, are you really volunteering to donate that kidney to your brother? And should we have an opt-in or opt-out system? Most religions approve of organ donation; even Jehovah's Witnesses that do not accept blood transfusions. And of course, the US government is involved, for better or worse. Not everyone thinks organ donation is good. More links here and here.

Unmitigated gall.

MattD — Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:35:41 -0800

Unmitigated gall. The illegal aliens who got two hearts and two lungs for their daughter REFUSED to have any of her organs donated when it was clear she was brain-dead...

SuzySmith — Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:26:13 -0800

Convict Heart Transplant A 31 year old 2 time felon just got a heart transplant, costing tax payers close to $1 million dollars. With an annual additional cost of $15,000. Right? Wrong? I'm not so sure.

Steven Den Beste — Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:48:03 -0800

Lots of posts lately about the election, about other strange things, (and especially about my favorite subject to not read: Nader) and we haven't had a knock-down drag-out argument about ethics for a while. So I thought I'd start one about this. Using up humans to collect medical data is unquestionably immoral and those who do it should be hung, if not put to death by torture. The question is whether those of us who had nothing to do with the collection of that data and have not done anything immoral become immoral by using data collected that way in order to save lives. I'm going to make three posts below, so be patient.