MODULUL DE ETICA MEDICALA, DEONTOLOGIE SI BIOETICA

CUM SE CONSTRUIESTE UN ESEU ARGUMENTATIV DE ETICA MEDICALA

Este un tip de eseu in care autorul construieste un eseu in jurul unui topic din care alege o teza (a
sa), o idee a sa, pe care o propune spre dezbatere (argumentativa).
Exista deci o tema/topic (de ex. “Eutanasia”) si o teza/idee proprie (de ex. euthanasia sustine
proprietatea) din care se construieste titlul (de ex. “Pentru a creste proprietatea sa dam curs
practicii eutanasiei”)
Eseul de etica medicala are ca tema/topic o dilema etica. O dilema etica este o dilema intre valori
morale (ale binelui) care sunt in conflict.
O falsa dilema este intre bine si rau. Un eseu cu titlu corect nu abordeaza o falsa dilemma.
Puteti alege o dilema etica generala cu valori morale cu caracter general (sociale, etc.) sau o
dilema etica medicala cu valori morale profesionale (care intervin in practica medicala, relatia
medic-pacient, medic -societate, etc.).
Eseul argumentativ ofera informatie dar si un model de argumentatie pro (opinii in sustinere),
opinii contra (opinii in opozitie) cat si solutiile de contraargumentatie la opiniile in opozitie.
Acest eseu aduce argumentatia prin care ne putem sustine teza propusa cat si apararea impotriva
atacurilor care sunt destinate ca sa ne schimbam teza.
Scopul este de a ne sustine si a ne pastra teza si implicit opinia si totodata de a convinge pe
ceilalti ca teza noastra este nu doar intemeiata dar si bine aparata.
Practicand un eseu argumentativ invatam sa ne sustinem argumentat ideile sis a combatem
contraargumentele.
Essayer= incercare (fr.).
Se prezinta “incercarea “ autorului de a afla solutia unei dileme etice (Dilemma=dubla solutia,
gr). Argumentatia este obligatorie.
Etape:
1. Se alege o teza (titlu) puternica, care produce rezonanta, incita
a. Este cea mai importanta etapa. Nu incepeti cu teza sau titlul ci mai intai cititi,
documentati, ganditi si formulati o parere proprie din care sa concepi teza.
b. Inainte de a crea teza autorul trebuie:
i. Sa se gandeasca daca are suficiente sustineri/argumente pentru teza
ii. Sa identifice argumentele contra, care l-ar putea contrazice
iii. Sa identifice apararile impotriva argumentelor contra (refutation)
2. Adunati pro-argumentatia
3. Aranjati pro-argumentatia si contra-argumentatia in ordinea fortei/puterii argumentelor

1
 a. Se aranjeaza argumentele in ordinea puterii lor: se incepe cu cel mai slab argument si se
termina cu cel mai puternic
b. De obicei 3 argumente
c. O data cu pro-argumentul se prezinta si contra-argumentul corespunzator. Dar aveti grija
ca pro-argumentul sa fie prezentat mai puternic, mai convingator, folositi citate, exemple,
metafore
d. Puteti alcatui pentru lucru un tabel: pe o coloana proagumentele numerotate cu I, II,
etc.pe alta contraargumentele corespunzatoare numerotate cu 1, 2.
4. Construiti outline-ul
a. Teza (titlul)
b. Folositi fraze complete
c. Introducere daca este nevoie de definitii sau daca sunt notiuni neclare
d. Pro-argumentele in ordine numerotata cu I, II, etc.
e. Contraargumentele cu 1,2
f. La concluzie se recopiaza teza, prezentati 1-2 fraze care sumarizeaza argumentele folosite
in ordinea inversa a fortei precum in text (incepand cu cel mai puternic), oferiti o fraza de
ingrijorare daca teza nu va fi preluata sau pusa in aplicare din care sa rezulte importanta
recunoasterii si aplicarii ei si despre cum va beneficia comunitatea sau stiinta
5. Scrieti singur eseul
6. Dati un proof reading obligatoriu de 1-2 ori
7. Citati corect tot ce preluati, in text si constituiti referinte bibliografice

Ce tema/topic sa aiba?
La libera alegere dar sa nu alegeti o tema deja clasica, din carte sau alte carti, din care sa
formulate o teza la care raspunsul este deja cunoscut de catre toata lumea (vezi exemple de teme
propuse, cazuri medicale din practica medicala, dezbateri din media, etc.

Teza si titlul (subiectul) unui eseu argumentativ trebuie:

1) Sa fie suficient de ingusta :
a. ex. negativ, “Marihuana este un drog ilegal”.
b. Ex. pozitiv: “Distributia marihuanei este ilegala”
2) Sa aiba un argument in continut:
a. ex. neg. : “Sa ne hotaram daca folosinta marihuanei este legala sau ilegala”;
b. ex. poz. “Marihuana poate avea o folosinta legala in unele afectiuni medicale
severe’;
c. ex. neg. : “Rolul geopolitic al Romaniei”
d. ex. poz. : “Rolul geopolitic al Romaniei in problema emigratiei”
3) Sa nu puna o intrebare (teza aduce lamuriri si o opinie proprie, teza clarifica, raspunde
intrebarilor, nu pune ea insasi intrebari);
a. ex. neg “Este marihuana un drog ce poate fi folosit in scop medical?”, “De ce
etica medicala?”, etc.
b. ex. poz “Marihuana este un drog ce poate fi folosit in scop medical”
4) Sa poata fi sustinuta argumentat (citari, referinte, statistici, date stiintifice, etc.);

2
 a. ex. neg. : “Cred ca etica medicala este necesara in medicina”. Parerile nu sunt
argumente si nu conving.
b. ex. poz. : “Etica medicala este necesara in medicina”.

Sustinerea cu argumente a tezei este partea cea mai complicata. Trebuie sa consideram ca
argumentele noastre trebuie alese cu atentie si persuasiune, puternice, astfel incat sa schimbe
argumentele celor ce ne asculta si sa ii faca sa se razgandeasca asupra propriilor lor argumente
astfel incat sa adere la cele propuse de noi.
Trebuie evitate:
1) Argumentele emotionale (ex. avea nevoie de asta.., era spre binele lui.., este cel mai bine
pentru el.., etc.)
2) Exemple irelevante fara legatura cu teza si topicul
3) Suprasimplificarea (ex. asa putem intelege mai bine viata…)
4) Supergeneralizarea (ex. orice tanar doreste sa reuseasca in viata, orice tanar stie asta...)
5) Argumente false (care determina argumentatie pentru o alta realitate)

Contra-argumentatia tezei este la randul ei foarte importanta pentru ca destabilizeaza apararea

oponentilor
Metode de contra-argumentatie:
a. Metoda de contraargumentatie bazata pe atacul argumentului slab sau insuficient
sustinut. Atunci cand argumentele folosite de oponenti sunt slabe sau nesustinute.
b. Metoda de contraargumentatie bazata pe compromis. Atunci cand argumentele
folosite de oponenti sunt puternice.
c. Metoda de argumentatie bazata pe respingerea argumentului gresit. Atunci cand
argumentele folosite de oponenti sunt eronate sau false.
Trebuie evitat:
1) Atacul la persoana oponentului: ex. neg. “cei ce sustin abandonul universitar sunt
iresponsabili”, “cei ce nu doresc vaccinarea au o problema psihica...”
2) Atacul generalizat sau nesistematizat: ex. neg. “ unii sustin abandonul universitar, dar se
inseala”. Se ataca folosind contraargumente, argumentul oponentului care trebuie clar
cunoscut si prezentat. ex. poz. “ unii sustin abandonul universitar pentru ca tinerii nu sunt
suficient de maturi fizic si psihologic pentru a infrunta statutul social al unui om cu
depline responsabilitati sociale. Dar se uita ca tinerii sunt declarati majori la 18 ani si au
drept de conducere de la aceeasi varsta si deci sunt suficient de maturi fizic si
psihologic.”

Exemplu de argumentatie si contra-argumentatie corecta:

Topic: Medicina alternativa: Reiki
Teza si titlul: “Este de preferat Reiki in locul medicinii clasice”

3
 Nr. Contraargument (CONTRA)
1 Unii sustin ca medicina clasica este
superioara pentru ca are o mare
vechime si si-a demonstrat pana acum
eficienta
2 Bolile foarte grave precum cancerul
sau SIDA nu se vindeca nici cu
medicina clasica si nici altcumva
3 Medicina clasica poate fi rapida si
eficienta in timp ce Reiki sau orice alta daca se aplica cu regularitate (metoda de
terapie alternativa necesita mult timp
Argument (PRO)
Dar si Reiki este dovedita stiintific si nu
produce iatrogenii (metoda de
contraargumentatie bazata pe atacul
argumentului slab sau insuficient sustinut)
Atat medicina clasica cat si Reiki au limite
in cazuri depasite dar amandoua au
rezultate favorabile in stadii incipiente
(metoda de contraargumentatie bazata pe
un compromis -i.e. argumente puternice)
Reiki necesita putin timp pentru a fi aplicat
argumentatie bazata pe respingerea
argumentului gresit)

Organizarea unui eseu argumentativ:

Sunt 3 constructii posibile:

1) Format cu argumente unul contra unul

a. Teza….
i. Cons + contraargumentia Cons 1 (PRO ideea 1-in ordinea de la cel mai
slab la cel mai tare)
ii. Cons + contraargumentia Cons 2 (PRO ideea 2)
iii. Cons + contraargumentia Cons 3 (PRO ideea 3)
iv. OPINIA PROPRIE (solutia la dilema etica)
v. Concluzia (care enumera pro in ordinea de la cel mai tare la cel mai slab)

2) Format cu argumente grupate mai intai criticile

a. Teza….
i. Cons (1)
ii. Cons (2)
iii. Cons (3)
iv. PRO ideea 1 care e Contraargumentia Cons 1
v. OPINIA PROPRIE (solutia la dilema etica)
vi. PRO ideea 2 -mai puternica decat 1- care e contraargumentia la Cons 2
vii. PRO ideea 3 -mai puternica decat 2- care e contraargumentia la Cons 3
viii. Concluzia (care enumera pro in ordinea de la cel mai tare la cel mai slab)

Exista si o varianta scurta:

b. Cons + contraargumentia (PRO ideea 3)
c. OPINIA PROPRIE (solutia la dilema etica)
d. PRO ideea 1
e. PRO ideea 2
f. Concluzia (care enumera pro in ordinea de la cel mai tare la cel mai slab)

4
 3) Format cu argumente grupate mai intai sustinerile (aduce de fapt doua randuri de sustineri
sau sustineri in completare: este cel mai puternic format)
a. Teza….
i. Pro (1)
ii. Pro (2)
iii. Pro (3)
iv. Cons (1)
v. Cons (2)
vi. Cons (3)
vii. Contraargumentia la Cons 1 (Pro 1 bis)
viii. Contraargumentia la Cons 2 (Pro 2 bis)
ix. Contraargumentia la Cons 3 (Pro 3 bis)
x. OPINIA PROPRIE (solutia la dilema etica)
xi. Concluzia (care enumera pro in ordinea de la cel mai tare la cel mai slab)

Exista o varianta scurta:

a. PRO ideea 1
b. PRO ideea 2
c. Cons 1 + contraargumentatia Cons. 1 (PRO 1 bis)
d. OPINIA PROPRIE (solutia la dilema etica)
e. Concluzia (care enumera pro in ordinea de la cel mai tare la cel mai slab)

Atentie:
1. Niciodata opinia proprie nu e prezentata de la inceput. Ea se sustine prin argumente si decurge
rational din acestea.
2. Formatul cu argumente “unul contra unul” este cel mai slaba constructie: acesta este de fapt
tabelul de lucru din outline. Nu e recomandata pentru maximum de puncte.

Posibile teme (exemple)

Pe website-ul ajob [http://www.bioethics.net/news/journal-backs-verification-of-cloning-
work-in-wake-of-scandal/] se gasesc diferite tag-uri: alegeti orice tag care va intereseaza si se
vor putea deschide materiale in extenso sau chiar filme scurte continand prezentari interesante si
lamuritoare cu privire la tema respectiva.
Puteti alege alte teme in afara celor din AJOB, din media, sau din practica medicala, etc.

5
 Weekly News

Stem Cell Research on Donor Eggs Often Kept Confidential 01 Jan 2012 - Many U.S.
fertility clinics don't tell egg donors that embryos made from their eggs may end up being used in
stem cell research, according to a new government survey. #bioethics

Should we erase painful memories? 01 Jan 2012 - "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
could soon become a reality -- but the concept raises some thorny questions. #bioethics

Physicians Group: Weigh Costs In Treating Patients 03 Jan 2012 - There is a lot of debate
these days about the costs of medical care, and the risks. On Monday, the American College of
Physicians issued new ethical guidelines on whether doctors should consider costs when
deciding how to treat patients.

Disaster Medicine Dilemmas Examined 03 Jan 2012 - Mass disasters require quick decisions
about treatment that can lead doctors to question whether they made the best medical and ethical
choices.

Donors Unaware Their Eggs Could Be Used in Stem Cell Research 04 Jan 2012 - A third of
Americans find stem cell research morally offensive -- but how many have unwittingly
contributed to it by giving up eggs? #bioethics

Transplants Bring New Faces In 2011 04 Jan 2012 - Three transplants gave severely injured
patients completely new faces in 2011. Now the doctors involved have revealed details about the
complex cases in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Outcry over disabled girl's transplant care renews eligibility debate 06 Feb 2012 - A parent's
anguished online plea for an organ transplant for her developmentally disabled daughter and new
research on kidney transplantation eligibility among elderly patients have refocused attention on
the vexing decisions that face physicians who determine which patients are suitable for
transplantation

Is money's sweet lure undermining the ethics of new student doctors? 06 Feb 2012 - When
medical schools' hospitals start adopting separate services for fee-paying patients, the ethical line
in the noble profession is getting blurred. #bioethics

Why Isn't the Public Terrified of Nanotechnology? 07 Feb 2012 - Some conspiracy theorists
are convinced that nanotechnology will destroy the world; at least one person has sent bombs to
professors researching the field. But most people aren't terribly worked up about
nanotechnology. Why not? #bioethics

Why Cognitive Enhancement Is in Your Future (and Your Past) 07 Feb 2012 - Using
technology to enhance our brains sounds terrifying, but using tools to make ourselves smarter
may be part of humans' nature

6
Humanizing Stem Cell Politics 07 Feb 2012 - As the election season heats up, the issue of stem
cell research and the rights of embryos is once again taking traction. #bioethics

Is it ever ok to hug your doctor? 08 Feb 2012 - To hug or not to hug, that really is the question.
We've all had those awkward moments. Should I go in for the hug? I'm not a hugger, what
should I do? What about in the medical setting? Is it ever OK to hug your doctor?

U.S. begins stem cell trial for hearing loss 08 Feb 2012 - U.S. researchers have begun a
groundbreaking trial to test the potential of umbilical cord blood transplants, a kind of stem cell
therapy, to treat and possibly reverse hearing loss in infants. #bioethics

Patient Communication Study Shows Doctors Regularly Withhold Truth 08 Feb 2012 - If
you think your doctor is hiding something from you, you might be right. #bioethics

Beyond DSM-5, Psychiatry Needs a "Third Way" 09 Feb 2012 - Both the psychiatric
profession and the general public have strong feelings about the pending DSM-5-what many in
the media like to call "Psychiatry's Bible." #bioethics

Cancer trial participants may have misconceptions10 Feb 2012 - People enrolled in early
stage trials for possible cancer treatments may underestimate the risks involved and overestimate
the potential benefits. #bioethics

AJOB
Volume 13
Issue 10

Special
Section
What Does
the Duty to
Warn
Require?
Seema K.
Shah, Sara
Chandros
Hull, Michael
A. Spinner,
Benjamin E. Berkman, Lauren A. Sanchez,
Ruquyyah Abdul-Karim, Amy P. Hsu, Reginald
Claypool & Steven M. Holland

7
Should Researchers Disclose Results to
Descendants?
Mark A. Rothstein

Relationships Matter: Ethical Considerations

for Returning Results to Family Members of
Deceased Subjects
Lauren C. Milner, Emily Y. Liu & Nanibaa’ A.
Garrison

Managing Disclosure of Research Misconduct

by a Graduate Student to a University Mental
Health Professional During a Clinical
Counseling Session
Holly A. Taylor & Benjamin S. Wilfond

A Systems-Level Approach to Resolve Tension

between Research Misconduct and
Confidentiality
Walter Limehouse

Let Therapists Be Therapists, Not Police

Paul S. Appelbaum

Why Misconduct Trumps Patient–Therapist

Confidentiality and Ways to Avoid the
Disclosure Dilemma
Nicholas H. Steneck

8
AJOB
Volume 13
Issue 10
Editorial
Critically
Appraising
Prenatal
Genetic
Diagnosis to
Prevent
Disorders of
Sexual

Development: An Opportunity Missed

Laurence B. McCullough
Target Article
Sports Medicine and Ethics
Daniela Testoni, Christoph P. Hornik, P. Brian
Smith, Daniel K. Benjamin Jr. & Ross E.
McKinney Jr.
Open Peer Commentary
Athletes Are Guinea Pigs
Nancy M. P. King & Richard Robeson

Concussion in Sports Medicine Ethics: Policy,

Epistemic and Ethical Problems
Mike McNamee & Brad Partridge

From Sports Ethics to Labor Relations

Ishan Dasgupta & Dan O’Connor

If You Can't Walk the Walk, Do You Have to

Talk the Talk: Ethical Considerations for the
Emerging Field of Sports Genomics
Dov Greenbaum

Prescription for “Sports Medicine and Ethics”

Pam R. Sailors, Sarah Teetzel & Charlene
Weaving

Professional Codes of Ethics as Leading

Benchmarks?
Charles Marsan

9
Do Conflicts of Interest Create a New
Professional Norm? Physical Therapists and
Workers’ Compensation
Maude Laliberté & Anne Hudon

this week's featured journal:

Target Article
Gender Eugenics? The Ethics of PGD for
Intersex Conditions
Robert Sparrow
Open Peer Commentary
Queer Liberation, Not Elimination: Why
Selecting Against Intersex is Not “Straight”
Forward
Jason Behrmann & Vardit Ravitsky

PGD and Parental Obligations: What Parents

Owe to Communities That Do Not Yet Exist
Chelsea Haramia

On the Inseparability of Gender Eugenics,

Ethics, and Public Policy: An Israeli
Perspective
Miriam Bentwich

The Limits of Procreative Liberty

Felice Marshall

Informed Choice and PGD to Prevent “Intersex

Conditions”
Jeff Nisker

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Intersex

Conditions: Beyond Parental Decision Making
Kristina Gupta & Sara M. Freeman

The Social Costs of Preempting Intersex Traits

Georgiann Davis

The Ethics of PGD for Intersex Conditions:

Problems With the Diversity Argument
David Trafimow

10
For the Sake of “Normality”? Medical
Indication, Social Justification, and the Welfare
of Children
Diana Aurenque & Hans-Jörg Ehni

Gender Eugenics Between Medicine, Culture,

and Society
Vincent Couture, Régen Drouin, Anne-Sophie
Ponsot, Frédérique Duplain-Laferrière & Chantal
Bouffard

this week's featured journal:

AJOB
Volume 13
Issue 9
Editorial
Vaccine
Mandates
Are
Justifiable
Because We
Are All in
This
Together
John D.
Lantos &
Mary Anne
Jackson

Ethics of Clinical Science in a Public Health

Emergency: Drug Discovery at the Bedside
Sarah J. L. Edwards
Open Peer Commentary
The Value of Sound Research Practices Even
Facing Pandemics
Abigail B. Shoben Abigail B. Shoben

Is the Precautionary Principle Adaptable to

Emergency Scenarios to Speed Up Research,
Risking the Individual Informed Consent?

11
Margarita Gonzalvo-Cirac, María Victoria Roqué,
Ferran Fuertes, Mauricio Pacheco Ignacio Segarra

A Free-Market Approach to Clinical Data

Gathering Is More Ethical
Michael Keane

Public Health Emergencies: Research's Friend

or Foe?
Stephanie Solomon

Issues in the Use of Stepped Wedge Cluster and

Alternative Designs in the Case of Pandemics
Ingeborg van der Tweel Rieke van der Graaf

Do Commercial Interests Impact Clinical

Science During a Public Health Emergency?
Valerie Delva

Ethics of Clinical Science in a Public Health

Emergency: Reflections on the Role of Research
Ethics Boards
Carlo Petrini

An Ethical Analysis of Mandatory Influenza

Vaccination of Health Care Personnel:
Implementing Fairly and Balancing Benefits
and Burdens
Armand H. Matheny Antommaria
Open Peer Commentary
The Case for Mandatory Flu Vaccination of
Children
Ben Bambery, Michael Selgelid, Hannah Maslen,
Andrew J. Pollard & Julian Savulescu

Guidance From Vaccination Jurisprudence

Michael R. Ulrich

Before the Mandate: Cultivating an

Organizational Culture of Trust and Integrity
Joshua E. Perry

Exemptions From Influenza Vaccinations for

Health Care Personnel Based on Self or
Identity Issues: Are They Justified?
David Trafimow

12
Evidence and Ethics in Mandatory Vaccination
Policies
Jason L. Schwartz

Mandatory Influenza Vaccination: How Far to

Go and Whom to Target Without Evidence?
Jean-Christophe Bélisle Pipon & Marjolaine
Frenette

Professional Solidarity: The Case of Influenza

Immunization
Mariëtte van den Hoven & Marcel Verweij

How the Weight of the Ethical Arguments

Depends on the Empirical “Facts”
Georg Marckmann, Anna M. Sanktjohanser &
Sabine Wicker

Applying Kass's Public Health Ethics

Framework to Mandatory Health Care Worker
Immunization: The Devil is in the Details
Saad B. Omer

Rebuttal to Jason Manne re Dangerous

Catholic Attack on POLST
Thaddeus Mason Pope

Rebuttal to Jason Manne re Dangerous

Catholic Attack on POLST
Thaddeus Mason Pope

13
this week's featured journal:

AJOB
Volume 13
Issue 8
Editorial
Global
Aging and
the
Allocation of
Health Care
Across the
Life Span
Norman
Daniels
Target
Articles

Justice Between Age Groups: An Objection to

the Prudential Lifespan Approach
Nancy S. Jecker
Treating Patients as Persons: A Capabilities
Approach to Support Delivery of Person-
Centered Care

Vikki A. Entwistle & Ian S. Watt

Rape And Abortion: Negating A Myth

Sabine Hildebrandt, M.D.
William Seidelman, M.D.
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.

Dangerous Catholic Attack on POLST

Thaddeus Mason Pope, J.D. Ph.D.

In Response to Professor Thaddeus Pope’s

article “Dangerous Catholic Attack on the
POLST?”
Jason W. Manne, J.D., Dr.PH

14
Pride in A Health Care System
Craig Klugman, Ph.D.

Doctors Who Torture: Why No Punishment?

Maurice Bernstein, M.D.

this week's featured journal:

AJOB
Neuroscience
Volume 4 Issue
3
Editorial
Values at the
Crossroads of
Neurology,
Psychiatry, and
Psychology
Paul J. Ford
Target Articles
Silos of Silence,
Stress, and Suffering: Patient and Physician
Experiences of MUPS and Diagnostic
Uncertainty
Chloë G. K. Atkins, Keith Brownell, Jude
Kornelsen, Robert Woollard & Andrea Whiteley

Attitudes on Mind Over Matter: Physician

Views on the Role of Placebo in Psychogenic
Disorders
Karen S. Rommelfanger

Half Someone Else's: Discourse and Trauma in

the PNES Patient
Lauren Boehm

Faces of Fatigue: Ethical Considerations on the

Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Smaranda Ene

Addiction: Current Criticism of the Brain

Disease Paradigm
Rachel Hammer, Molly Dingel, Jenny Ostergren,

15
Brad Partridge, Jennifer McCormick & Barbara
A. Koenig

this week's featured journal:

AJOB Volume 13
Issue 7

Editorial
Overthrowing the Tyranny of the Journal
Impact Factor
David Magnus

Target Articles
Ethical and Professional Considerations
Providing Medical Evaluation and Care to
Refugee Asylum Seekers
Ramin Asgary & Clyde L. Smith

Prohibition or Coffee Shops: Regulation of

Amphetamine and Methylphenidate for
Enhancement Use by Healthy Adults
Veljko Dubljević

16
A Tale of Two (or Three) States
Kayhan Parsi, JD, PhD

this week's featured journal:

AJOB Volume
13 Issue 6

Editorial
The Oys of
Yiddish
Paul Root Wolpe

Target Articles
Nudging and
Informed
Consent
Shlomo Cohen

Toward a More Stable Blood Supply:

Charitable Incentives,
Donation Rates, and the Experience of
September 11
Reuben G. Sass

Overthrowing the Tyranny of the Journal

Impact Factor
David Magnus, Ph.D.

Vermont Passes Physician-Assisted-Suicide

Craig Klugman, Ph.D.

Carbon, Bioethics and Planetary Health

Craig Klugman, Ph.D.

17
this week's featured journal:

AJOB
Neuroscience
Volume 4 Issue
2
Editorial
Minimizing
Harm in
Psychiatric
Treatment and
Research
Robert L. Sadoff
Target Articles
What We Owe
the Psychopath: A Neuroethical Analysis
Grant Gillett & Jiaochen Huang

Ethical Considerations in Deep Brain

Stimulation for the Treatment of Addiction and
Overeating Associated With Obesity
Jared M. Pisapia, Casey H. Halpern, Ulf J. Muller,
Piergiuseppe Vinai, John A. Wolf, Donald M.
Whiting, Thomas A. Wadden, Gordon H. Baltuch
& Arthur L. Caplan

This Week's Featured Journal:

The
American
Journal of
Bioethics
Volume 13
Issue 5
Editorial
Military
Doctors and
Deaths by
Torture:
When a
Witness
Becomes an

18
Accessory
Steven H. Miles
Target Articles
Ban the Sunset? Nonpropositional Content and
Regulation of Pharmaceutical Advertising
Paul Biegler & Patrick Vargas

The Right to Know Your Genetic Parents:

From Open-Identity Gamete Donation to
Routine Paternity Testing
An Ravelingien & Guido Pennings

This Week's Featured Journal:

AJOB Primary
Research
Volume 4 Issue
2
Article
What
Constitutes the
Best Interest of
a Child? Views
of Parents,
Children, and
Physicians in a
Pediatric
Oncology Setting
Martine C. de Vries, Dorine Bresters, Gertjan J. L.
Kaspers, Mirjam Houtlosser, Jan M. Wit, Dirk P.
Engberts & Evert van Leeuwen

Using the Best Interests Standard to Generate

Actual Duties
Loretta M. Kopelman
Articles
Factors That Affect Integrity of Authorship of
Scientific Meeting Abstracts
John Lynch, Jane E. Strasser, Christopher J.
Lindsell & Joel Tsevat

Do Medical Students Recall and Use the

Language of Ethics They are Taught

19
Preclinically Once They are in the Clinical
Training Environment? An Empirical Study in
Ethics Education
Lauris C. Kaldjian, Laura A. Shinkunas, Valerie L.
Forman-Hoffman, Marcy E. Rosenbaum, Jerold C.
Woodhead, Lisa M. Antes & Jane A. Rowat

Views of IRBs Concerning Their Local

Ecologies: Perceptions of Relationships,
Systems, and Tensions Between IRBs and Their
Institutions
Robert Klitzman

Knowledge of and Training in Research Ethics

in an African Health Research Community
Omokhoa Adedayo Adeleye & Temidayo Olusade
Ogundiran

Do Hospitalized Patients in a Nigerian

Community Consider Informed Consent
Necessary?
Omokhoa Adedayo Adeleye & Ekaete Alice Tobin

This Week's Featured Journal:

AJOB
Volume 13
Issue 4

Editorial
Can
Informed
Consent Go
Too Far?
Balancing
Consent
and Public
Benefit in
Research
Lauren C.
Milner & David Magnus

Target Articles

20
Does Consent Bias Research?
Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben

21