It’s time to update the modern Hippocratic Oath.

It’s time to update the modern Hippocratic Oath, says the World Medical Association, a global organization of physicians which currently represents 112 national medical associations. The oath – which, somewhat confusingly, is called the Declaration of Geneva – was drafted 67 years ago, as a response to atrocities committed by Nazi doctors before and during World War II. Since then, only minor revisions have been made. The WMA says that the ethical obligations of doctors may need to be redrafted to reflect social changes. “In recent decades, respect for patient self-determination has been established as one of the most important principles of medical ethics,” says the WMA. “However, it is not mentioned in the Declaration of Geneva.” The oath should also enjoin “mutual respect between students and teachers”, not just of students for their teachers. The revision is to be entrusted to an international working group. There have been so many controversial issues in the practice of medicine in the past 70 years – abortion, euthanasia, cosmetic surgery, transgender surgery, on-line medical databases, genetic engineering, assisted reproduction, conscientious objection, to name a few. The working group has its work cut out.

Here is the current text of the Declaration of Geneva.

• AT THE TIME OF BEING ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:
• I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
• I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
• I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity;
• THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
• I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
• I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
• MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;
• I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
• I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
• I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
• I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour,

h/t Bioethics

• 
  

Personhood and moral status: the debate continues

Personhood debates have dominated much of the bioethics discourse for the past few decades, yet little consensus has been reached. Two insightful articles recently published online in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy may provide much needed clarity on the issues involved.
In an essay on ‘moral status questions’ about embryos, ethicist Shane Maxwell Wilkins of Fordham University debunks a series of criticisms made against proponents of the inherent moral status of embryos.
Ethicists like Robert P. George and Christopher F. Tollefsen appear to have been misrepresented by a number of their most vocal critics. As Wilkins writes, George and Tollefsen are often criticised for making an ostensibly illicit inference from the biological peculiarity of embryos to the morally unique status of embryonic cells. This, however, is a caricature of their position:

“[George and Tollefsen] deploy the concept of an ‘active disposition’… If an active disposition to develop into an adult human being is morally salient, then it makes sense to say that the one-celled embryo has moral status, whereas every individual cell of an adult human being in isolation lacks it.”

Wikins also refutes the view that embryos are not sufficiently distinct from a mother’s uterus to be considered independent entities. Wilkins distinguishes causal independence from ontological independence, saying we don’t need the former to prove that the child is a distinct entity. “[all that the argument] requires is the much weaker claim that the embryo is ontologically independent of the mother.”
In a similar essay to Wilkins, Andrew McGee of Queensland University of Technology’s Centre for Ethics and Health Law has critiqued arguments advanced by Jeff McMahon and Derick Parfit, which try to make a case for the non-personhood of embryos and patients in a persistent vegetative state.
McMahon offers two key arguments for the non-personhood of embryonic and PVS humans.
The first involves the rare case of dicephalic twins who share almost all vital organs, but have distinct brains and assumedly distinct mental lives. McMahon says that cases like these are good reason to locate personhood not in the body but in consciousness. He then proceeds to use this as evidence to suggest that embryos and vegetative patients are not persons, but rather ‘human organisms’ sans the moral standing of persons.
Yet as McGee points out, McMahon does little to justify his conclusion that the twins are somehow one human organism. There is a good argument to be made to say they are actually two organisms despite being closely connected (or alternatively, there may be just one organism with two heads).
McMahon’s second argument relies on a hypothetical thought experiment about twins, of whom one has his brain transplanted into the corpse of the other (yes, it is rather crazy). McMahon claims that the twin who receives the new body is still the same person, despite losing his old body. And this, he suggests, is evidence that it is not a person that is killed in early term abortions or the withdrawal of a feeding tube from a PVS patient; it is rather a mere “human organism”.
McGee takes issue with McMahon on this as well. As McGee states, in ordinary circumstances the word “person” has built into it assumptions about the centrality of bodily continuity to personal identity.

 “our current concepts of person and personal identity include both bodily identity and psychological continuity…McMahon leaves this criterion [i.e. bodily identity] out of his account, not realizing that he has subtly dropped one of our current criteria for the identity and identification of persons”.

Person in the way we use the word it is not just about psychological continuity, and so the transplant argument doesn't get off the ground.

IVF an “evolutionary experiment” – genetics expert

A leading evolutionary biologist has labelled IVF an “evolutionary experiment” that may have serious effects on children in later life.
Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Washington DC, Dr Pascal Gagneux of University of California, San Diego said that the long-term effects of IVF are still unclear.

"…We're engaging in an evolutionary experiment ... I would compare it to high fructose corn syrup and fast food in the US. It took 50 years; it was fantastic, you got bigger and healthier, and now the US are the first generation that are shorter and heavier and die younger. But it took 50 years…”

He noted that the oldest IVF child in the world is only 39.

According to Dr Gagneux some possible long-term side-effects are diabetes, high blood pressure and even premature death. He cited a study in which a large group of IVF and naturally conceived children were taken to a high altitude, low oxygen environment that mimicked the effects of ageing.
Heart and artery malfunction was reported "very convincingly" in the assisted reproduction children, including those with brothers and sisters who were conceived naturally, Dr Gagneux said.
A number of IVF specialists have responded to Dr. Gagneux’s remarks, saying he lacked evidence for his bold claims.  Allan Pacey, Professor of Andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: “There is a wealth of epidemiological evidence to suggest that the babies born through IVF technologies are on the whole as healthy as their naturally conceived counterparts.

“Where some differences have been observed, these are largely explained by genetic defects in the sperm of the father rather than the fact that fertilisation and embryo development occurred outside of the body. I don’t share the concerns raised by Dr Gagneux. If we were always led by the precautionary principle, medicine would never make any advances.”

h/t Bioethics

BREAKING NEWS: Hawking admits God does exist!

BREAKING NEWS: Hawking admits God does exist!

What should Apple do?

Here's a moral dilemma for you to consider

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35594245

When faced with issues of customer confidence, national security and trust is the right thing to do in the interests of the majority or something else?

On what is real.

On what is real.

Revise with the BBC

You might want to have a search through this website, it wont get you the A grade your after but could help you get into a topic you're struggling with, use the 'search' box.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion

Exam dates

I've got your exam dates for the summer season:

AS Philosophy ~ Thursday 19th May, in the morning.
AS Ethics ~ Friday 27th May, in the morning.
A2 Philosophy ~ Wednesday 15th June, in the morning.
A2 Ethics ~ Tuesday 21st June, in the afternoon.

So without any question now is the time for