Search results
Found 2757 matches for
The Hopkins-Oxford Psychedelics Ethics (HOPE) Working Group Consensus Statement
The first Hopkins-Oxford Psychedelic Ethics (HOPE) workshop convened to discuss ethical matters relating to psychedelics in August of 2023 at the University of Oxford. The organizers (BDE, DBY, EJ) aimed for a diversity of participant backgrounds and perspectives. The keynotes were given by an Indigenous scholar and a psychiatrist; other attendees included lawyers and ethicists, psychedelic scientists, anthropologists, philosophers, entrepreneurs and harm reduction actors. The workshop was organized out of a recognition that the field of psychedelics is at a pivotal point in its history: research, clinical applications, and policy initiatives are quickly scaling up. The use of psychedelics is expanding, and the development of new systems governing their use is already underway. These changes are happening while substantial uncertainty remains, both about the effects of psychedelics and about the ethical dimensions surrounding their use. We recognize that there is a significant risk of harms as well as potential benefits. Participants at the workshop discussed the ethical aspects of psychedelics, including research methods, clinical practices, history, law and society, spirituality, community, culture and politics that arise in relation to psychedelics. Despite the value of these discussions, the group remains mindful that relatively few voices could be included compared to the scope of those thinking about psychedelics, and those who will be impacted by psychedelics in the coming years. Participants resolved that improving outcomes will require us to make special efforts to further increase the diversity of participant perspectives and backgrounds at future events, including patients and users (not only those who have been benefited by psychedelics, but also those who have been harmed), biopharmaceutical companies, Indigenous communities with established histories of psychedelic use, and law and policy makers. Workshop participants discussed a draft of the current document. This document is intended to summarize our shared understanding of some of the central ethical considerations relating to psychedelics and a few recommendations to the field. Of course, on some points, there is no consensus yet, and there may never be. Further, there are matters on which the group was agnostic, matters which split the room, and matters which we agreed required more evidence and more discussion between the full breadth of stakeholders. Nonetheless, the signatories endorse the sentiments below and believe they are worth conveying to the field at large. More broadly, we hope that this statement is a useful contribution: to those who work with, research, or use psychedelics, as well as anyone interested in the field.
Negotiating severity behind the scenes: prenatal testing in Germany.
Foetal-related severity is a key concept in policy and legislation relating to access to both reproductive technologies and selective abortions in many countries around the world, but not in Germany. This study sheds light on how 'severity' in the context of prenatal testing is understood and negotiated within the particular socio-cultural and legal context of Germany, where 'severity' relating to foetal clinical findings neither counts as a justification to implement population prenatal screening programs, nor as a legal ground to terminate pregnancy. This study explores the views of women who undergo prenatal testing, as well as of professionals who encounter them, through semi-structured interviews. It showcases how they frame severity and questions whether the existing legal and regulatory framework relating to prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy addresses their concerns and needs regarding reproductive decision-making. The interviews (n = 27) reveal that despite it being legally outside the explicit reasons for testing and termination of pregnancy, both women and professionals negotiate severity behind the scenes. Their interpretation of severity is highly context-dependent and relies on clinical, social and familial facets. Their perceptions of severity guide them in their handling of and decision-making around pregnancy management. Acknowledging the personal nature of severity assessment and providing professional or legal guidance which explicitly mentions foetal anomaly as a legitimate factor in pregnancy management could provide healthcare professionals and patients with the room needed to manage the pregnancy favourably.
When two become one: Singular duos and the neuroethical frontiers of brain-to-brain interfaces
Advances in brain-brain interface technologies raise the possibility that two or more individuals could directly link their minds, sharing thoughts, emotions, and sensory experiences. This paper explores conceptual and ethical issues posed by such mind-merging technologies in the context of clinical neuroethics. Using hypothetical examples along a spectrum from loosely connected pairs to fully merged minds, the authors sketch out a range of factors relevant to identifying the degree of a merger. They then consider potential new harms like loss of identity, psychological domination, loss of mental privacy, and challenges for notions of autonomy and patient benefit when applied to merged minds. While radical technologies may seem to necessitate new ethical paradigms, the authors suggest the individual-focus underpinning clinical ethics can largely accommodate varying degrees of mind mergers so long as individual patient interests remain identifiable. However, advanced decisionmaking and directives may have limitations in addressing the dilemmas posed. Overall, mind-merging possibilities amplify existing challenges around loss of identity, relating to others, autonomy, privacy, and the delineation of patient interests. This paper lays the groundwork for developing resources to address the novel issues raised, while suggesting the technologies reveal continuity with current healthcare ethics tensions.
Engaging publics in biobanking and genetic research governance - a literature review towards informing practice in India.
Background: There is growing interest in advancing biobanking and genetic research in many countries, including India. Concurrently, more importance is being placed on participatory approaches involving the public and other stakeholders in addressing ethical issues and policymaking as part of a broader governance approach. We analyse the tools, purposes, outcomes and limitations of engaging people towards biobanking and genetic research governance that have been undertaken worldwide, and explore their relevance to India. Methods: Papers to be reviewed were identified through a targeted literature search carried out using ProQuest and PubMed. Retrieved papers were analysed with the Rpackage for Qualitative Data Analysis using inductive coding and thematic analysis, guided by the Framework Method. Results: Empirical studies on public and community engagement in the context of biobanking and or genetic research show a predominance towards the end of the last decade, spanning 2007 to 2019. Numerous strategies-including public meetings, community durbars, focus group discussions, interviews, deliberations, citizen-expert panels and community advisory boards-have been used to facilitate communication, consultation and collaboration with people, at the level of general and specific publics. Engagement allowed researchers to understand how people's values, opinions and experiences related to the research process; and enabled participants to become partners within the conduct of research. Conclusions: Constructs such as 'co-production', 'engagement of knowledges', 'rules of engagement' and 'stewardship' emerge as significant mechanisms that can address the ethical challenges and the governance of biobanking and genetic research in India. Given the inherent diversity of the Indian population and its varying cultural values and beliefs, there is a need to invest time and research funds for engagement as a continuum of participatory activity, involving communication, consultation and collaboration in relation to biobanking and genetic research. Further research into these findings is required to explore their effective employment within India.
Afterword
AbstractThis casebook offers a window into important aspects of the ethical landscapes that researchers, communities, health professionals, policy makers – and ethicists – had to navigate during the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The cases presented in this casebook are inevitably a selection informed by and constrained by the processes through which they were sought, and by the pandemic itself. Additional cases could valuably complement all the thematic chapters in this casebook. In addition, this casebook calls for a broader approach to research ethics, both in terms of the issues to be considered, and the range of stakeholders having ethical responsibilities relating to the conduct of research. However a broad range of stakeholders have differing values, remits, authorities and capacities to exercise power in pandemic contexts, and in many situations, exercises of power, and their impact on research, are not direct and explicit. As such they are less amenable to clear representation in real-world cases, highlighting the importance of complementing discussions of the cases in this casebook with conceptual literature. Reflection on the research that has not been conducted is also critical. The COVID-19 pandemic has reemphasized that global health emergencies are never only about health. The wide-ranging impacts of the pandemic on economies, employment, education and a range of socially and culturally important activities, accentuates the importance of an equally comprehensive research agenda, which goes beyond a narrow conception of ‘health’, and addresses a broad range of pandemic impacts on populations. A further way in which we believe debate on pandemic research ethics both could and should be broadened is in relation to aspects of pandemic science beyond those relating to ‘response’. Inevitably, in the context of an emerging and continuing pandemic, scientific research attention has tended to focus on interventions that can enable more effective responses. However pandemic science can be thought of as divisible into four interdependent and overlapping domains: prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Research is essential to the development, evaluation, and deployment of interventions in each of these domains and effective, valuable, trustworthy and trusted research will require ethical questions to be identified and addressed. This chapter concludes by inviting the connection of additional cases and conceptual resources to this casebook, to enhance and expand the themes and topics covered.
Introduction: Research Ethics and Health Policy in Epidemics and Pandemics
AbstractGlobal health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic are contexts in which it is critical to draw upon learning from prior research and to conduct novel research to inform real-time decision-making and pandemic responses. While research is vitally important, however, emergencies are radically non-ideal contexts for its conduct, due to exceptional uncertainty, urgency, disruption, health needs, and strain on existing health systems, amongst other challenges. This generates novel ethical challenges and a broader conception of research ethics is necessary to effectively address the complexity of pandemic research contexts. Going beyond traditional approaches to research ethics centring on the design of specific studies, this broader conception requires consideration of fundamental questions relating to the exercise of power and influence throughout research pathways, and a broader attention to both salient ethical issues, and the ethical responsibilities of stakeholders. These include important questions about responsibilities to gather evidence and generate knowledge systematically during emergencies, to implement policy responses in ways that are amenable to evaluation, and even potential moral obligations to participate in research. In situations of heightened uncertainty, additional questions arise about what constitutes sufficient evidence to justify the development and implementation of policy responses, and the responsibilities of scientific and social science researchers involved in policy-making processes. The four cases in this chapter prompt reflection on evolving and at times competing values and responsibilities of policy-makers, regulators, health authorities and researchers during the design and conduct of research, and proposed early implementation of research findings. These cases highlight issues arising when conducting research of national importance in a pandemic, where researchers are required to liaise with authorities responsible for pandemic responses and address complex ethical issues, including protecting the interests of participants and publics when tensions arise between prioritising the completion of research and accelerating the rollout of novel health interventions. This chapter invites reflection on the practical ethical implications of commitments to undertake research during emergencies, including the nature and scope of the relevant responsibilities of a range of stakeholders.
Ethical frameworks should be applied to computational modelling of infectious disease interventions
This perspective is part of an international effort to improve epidemiological models with the goal of reducing the unintended consequences of infectious disease interventions. The scenarios in which models are applied often involve difficult trade-offs that are well recognised in public health ethics. Unless these trade-offs are explicitly accounted for, models risk overlooking contested ethical choices and values, leading to an increased risk of unintended consequences. We argue that such risks could be reduced if modellers were more aware of ethical frameworks and had the capacity to explicitly account for the relevant values in their models. We propose that public health ethics can provide a conceptual foundation for developing this capacity. After reviewing relevant concepts in public health and clinical ethics, we discuss examples from the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate the current separation between public health ethics and infectious disease modelling. We conclude by describing practical steps to build the capacity for ethically aware modelling. Developing this capacity constitutes a critical step towards ethical practice in computational modelling of public health interventions, which will require collaboration with experts on public health ethics, decision support, behavioural interventions, and social determinants of health, as well as direct consultation with communities and policy makers.
Research Opportunities and Ethical Considerations for Heart and Lung Xenotransplantation Research: A report from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop.
Xenotransplantation offers the potential to meet the critical need for heart and lung transplantation presently constrained by the current human donor organ supply. Much was learned over the past decades regarding gene editing to prevent the immune activation and inflammation that cause early organ injury, and strategies for maintenance immunosuppression to promote longer-term xenograft survival. However, many scientific questions remain regarding further requirements for genetic modification of donor organs, appropriate contexts for xenotransplantation research (including non-human primates, recently deceased humans, and living human recipients), and risk of xenozoonotic disease transmission. Related ethical questions include appropriate selection of clinical trial participants, challenges with obtaining informed consent, animal rights and welfare considerations, and cost. Research involving recently deceased humans has also emerged as a potential novel way to understand how xeno-organs will impact the human body. Clinical xenotransplantation and research involving decedents also raise ethical questions, and will require consensus regarding regulatory oversight and protocol review. These considerations and the related opportunities for xenotransplantation research were discussed in a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and are summarized in this meeting report.
Australian Public Perspectives on Genomic Newborn Screening: Risks, Benefits, and Preferences for Implementation.
Recent dramatic reductions in the timeframe in which genomic sequencing can deliver results means its application in time-sensitive screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is becoming a reality. As genomic NBS (gNBS) programs are developed around the world, there is an increasing need to address the ethical and social issues that such initiatives raise. This study therefore aimed to explore the Australian public's perspectives and values regarding key gNBS characteristics and preferences for service delivery. We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age via social media; 75 people aged 23-72 participated in 1 of 15 focus groups. Participants were generally supportive of introducing genomic sequencing into newborn screening, with several stating that the adoption of such revolutionary and beneficial technology was a moral obligation. Participants consistently highlighted receiving an early diagnosis as the leading benefit, which was frequently linked to the potential for early treatment and intervention, or access to other forms of assistance, such as peer support. Informing parents about the test during pregnancy was considered important. This study provides insights into the Australian public's views and preferences to inform the delivery of a gNBS program in the Australian context.
The selective deployment of AI in healthcare: An ethical algorithm for algorithms.
Machine-learning algorithms have the potential to revolutionise diagnostic and prognostic tasks in health care, yet algorithmic performance levels can be materially worse for subgroups that have been underrepresented in algorithmic training data. Given this epistemic deficit, the inclusion of underrepresented groups in algorithmic processes can result in harm. Yet delaying the deployment of algorithmic systems until more equitable results can be achieved would avoidably and foreseeably lead to a significant number of unnecessary deaths in well-represented populations. Faced with this dilemma between equity and utility, we draw on two case studies involving breast cancer and melanoma to argue for the selective deployment of diagnostic and prognostic tools for some well-represented groups, even if this results in the temporary exclusion of underrepresented patients from algorithmic approaches. We argue that this approach is justifiable when the inclusion of underrepresented patients would cause them to be harmed. While the context of historic injustice poses a considerable challenge for the ethical acceptability of selective algorithmic deployment strategies, we argue that, at least for the case studies addressed in this article, the issue of historic injustice is better addressed through nonalgorithmic measures, including being transparent with patients about the nature of the current epistemic deficits, providing additional services to algorithmically excluded populations, and through urgent commitments to gather additional algorithmic training data from excluded populations, paving the way for universal algorithmic deployment that is accurate for all patient groups. These commitments should be supported by regulation and, where necessary, government funding to ensure that any delays for excluded groups are kept to the minimum. We offer an ethical algorithm for algorithms-showing when to ethically delay, expedite, or selectively deploy algorithmic systems in healthcare settings.
Tracing Tomorrow: young people's preferences and values related to use of personal sensing to predict mental health, using a digital game methodology.
BACKGROUND: Use of personal sensing to predict mental health risk has sparked interest in adolescent psychiatry, offering a potential tool for targeted early intervention. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the preferences and values of UK adolescents with regard to use of digital sensing information, including social media and internet searching behaviour. We also investigated the impact of risk information on adolescents' self-understanding. METHODS: Following a Design Bioethics approach, we created and disseminated a purpose-built digital game (www.tracingtomorrow.org) that immersed the player-character in a fictional scenario in which they received a risk assessment for depression Data were collected through game choices across relevant scenarios, with decision-making supported through clickable information points. FINDINGS: The game was played by 7337 UK adolescents aged 16-18 years. Most participants were willing to personally communicate mental health risk information to their parents or best friend. The acceptability of school involvement in risk predictions based on digital traces was mixed, due mainly to privacy concerns. Most participants indicated that risk information could negatively impact their academic self-understanding. Participants overwhelmingly preferred individual face-to-face over digital options for support. CONCLUSIONS: The potential of digital phenotyping in supporting early intervention in mental health can only be fulfilled if data are collected, communicated and actioned in ways that are trustworthy, relevant and acceptable to young people. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: To minimise the risk of ethical harms in real-world applications of preventive psychiatric technologies, it is essential to investigate young people's values and preferences as part of design and implementation processes.