Ethical Issues of Brain Organoids: Well Beyond “Consciousness”?

Stoeklé, Henri‐Corto; Ivasilevitch, Achille; Marignac, Geneviève; Hervé, Christian

doi:10.1080/21507740.2022.2048726

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several theories in bioethics [7]. For various metabioethical reasons [7][8][9][10], we opted for a specific bioethical theory, adapted from the "global bioethics" (based on quality of life/survival) of the American bioethicist and biochemist Van Rensselaer Potter [11]. This theory contrasts strongly with the widely used theory of "principlism" (= autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice) of the American bioethicists and philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress [12].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From a voluntary vaccination policy to mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients: an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background At the start of 2021, oncologists lacked the necessary scientific knowledge to adapt their clinical practices optimally when faced with cancer patients refusing or reluctant to be vaccinated against COVID-19, despite the marked vulnerability of these patients to severe, and even fatal forms of this new viral infectious disease. Oncologists at Foch Hospital were confronted with this phenomenon, which was observed worldwide, in both the general population and the population of cancer patients. Methods Between April and November 2021, the Ethics and Oncology Departments of Foch Hospital decided to investigate this subject, through an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics. Our scientific objective was to try to identify and resolve the principal bio-ethical issues, with a view to improving clinical practices in oncology during future major pandemics of this kind, from a highly specific bio-ethical standpoint (= quality of life/survival). We used a mainly qualitative methodological approach based on questionnaires and interviews. Results In April 2021, 29 cancer patients refused or were reluctant to be vaccinated (5.6%; 29/522). Seventeen of these patients said that making vaccination mandatory would have helped them to accept vaccination. In October 2021, only 10 cancer patients continued to maintain their refusal (1.9%; 10/522). One of the main reasons for the decrease in refusals was probably the introduction of the “pass sanitaire” (health pass) in July 2021, which rendered vaccination indispensable for many activities. However, even this was not sufficient to convince these 10 cancer patients. Conclusion We identified a key bio-ethical issue, which we then tried to resolve: vaccination policy. We characterized a major tension between “the recommendation of anti-COVID-19 vaccination” (a new clinical practice) and “free will” (a moral value), and the duty to “protect each other” (a moral standard). Mandatory vaccination, at least in France, could resolve this tension, with positive effects on quality of life (i.e. happiness), or survival, in cancer patients initially refusing or reluctant to be vaccinated, but only if collective and individual scales are clearly distinguished.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From a voluntary vaccination policy to mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients: an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet this focus on sentience is not uncontroversial; some believe that, as a concept relating to both body and mind, sentience cannot be measured with enough certainty to successfully ground a moral dutyparticularly in the face of moral pluralism. 47 Others argue that even if we can be sure some beings are sentient, this philosophical standard is not where most people see moral value-instead preferring either theological or biological determinants. As put by John Evans with regard to sentient animals, "…short of a talking monkey, the public is not very concerned about [their] capacities."…”

Section: A Lesson For Regulation Of Human Cerebral Organoidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Legal Status of Human Cerebral Organoids: Lessons from Animal Law

Jowitt¹

2023

Camb Q Healthc Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper will ask whether the legal status presently afforded to nonhuman animals ought to influence regulatory debates concerning human cerebral organoids. The New York Courts recently refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus to Happy the Elephant as she was property rather than a legal person while at the same time accepting that she is a moral patient deserving of rights protection. An undesirable situation has therefore arisen in which the law holds a being with moral status to be incapable of benefitting from legal redress due to their legal status as property. The author argues that this is something that we ought to avoid when designing the regulatory framework which will govern the use of human cerebral organoids. Yet, a difference exists in that, whereas the judges already accept Happy is a moral patient, there is presently no consensus around the moral status of organoids. This paper will consider whether human cerebral organoids have passed the moral threshold of sentience. If they have, or are close to doing so, regulators ought to consider their legal status in advance so as to ensure that adequate limitations are placed on this usage so as to avoid unethical practices.

show abstract

“…Conversely, a more teleological conception and utilization impregnated with Utilitarianism is preferred by the bioethicists of the English-speaking world. 12 , 13 Beyond the West, in countries not particularly marked by either Kantism or Utilitarianism , bioethicists tend to distance themselves somewhat from Principlism. 14 , 15 In our view, the main problem with Principlism is that it is a more absolutist than Universalist ethical theory that is, by definition, indifferent to cultural diversity and the concrete needs of humanity.…”

Section: Global Bioethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This request led to the scheduling of the so-called "emergency" multidisciplinary team meeting (MTM), the principle of which was subsequently described in various scientific journals. 4,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] The general idea was to expand the fields of competence and knowledge of "classic" MTMs, 19 which are limited to only a few medical specialties (e.g. oncology, radiology, etc.…”

Section: First Wave Of the Covid-19 Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioethics after the COVID-19 pandemic: More research, fewer committees?

Stoeklé

Hervé

2022

Clinical Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the face of the pandemic, bioethics, once again, proved its scientific utility. In France, in particular, the academic approach (= peer-reviewed, scientific publications, etc.) should be given priority over the institutional approach (= public surveys, public meetings, etc.), in hospitals, research institutes, universities, and companies, with the professionalization that this would imply (i.e. bioethicists).

show abstract

Ethical Issues of Brain Organoids: Well Beyond “Consciousness”?

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

From a voluntary vaccination policy to mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients: an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics

From a voluntary vaccination policy to mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients: an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics

On the Legal Status of Human Cerebral Organoids: Lessons from Animal Law

Bioethics after the COVID-19 pandemic: More research, fewer committees?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About