Hi all.

I recently graduated with my undergrad in public policy, but my favorite course I took was bioethics. I am wanting to get my masters in social work due to having a chronic illness and wanting to focus on the mental health of my specific health community.

After some research, I stumbled upon a few colleges throughout the country that offer a bioethics social work degree, which I was unaware was an option. Does anyone have any information or experience on this?

Hi!

I graduated my undergrad with degrees in Neuroscience and Bioethics. I had intended on continuing on to pursue a doctoral degree to work in clinical ethics. However, during my gap year currently, I have found myself involved in EMS - currently finishing my EMT-B, and intend to continue on to get my EMT-A. I have worked in the situations that require EMS - I come from a background environment where severe injuries are frequent, and have seen a lot. I decided to get into EMS as a way to understand the crises that individuals/ families go through ahead of working in clinical ethics.

Where I'm at currently is finding myself thriving in the EMS setting, and feeling like it is truly a calling of mine. I still want to pursue bioethics, as it is also a passion of mine. I am feeling a lot of pressure from people close to me to continue on with my schooling - the idea of going into EMS immediately out of high school wasn't considered an option for me. My partner and parents think I would be "wasting my potential" if I did EMS as my career path. And I do want to work in bioethics in the clinical setting in some capacity. I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas of how to marry these two components? I am not opposed to additional graduate schooling, but I am struggling to determine what the best direction to take is.

If anyone has advice, recommendations of avenues to explore, career ideas, I would be appreciative to hear about them.

Does anyone know of any programs, researchers, books or other resources related to bioethics and nutrition? I am interested in topics like end of life feeding, hypocaloric diets in clinical settings, food restrictions in clinical settings, corporate influence on feeding guidelines (nationally or facility specific), as well as anything related to neonatal or pediatric nutrition and ethics.

Here are two interviews with Philip Nitschke, the Australian doctor who invented the Sarco suicide pod.

Part 1

Part 2

Mitchell Tremblay ran through all the mental health problems he had been diagnosed with: PTSD, borderline and histrionic personality disorders, major depressive disorder and, most recently, generalised anxiety and bulimia.

When he learnt this year that Canada was planning to widen its assisted dying legislation to include chronic mental illness, he saw a way out.

The global capital for assisted death is considering including mental illness as a legitimate reason for ending one’s life, but its euthanasia laws are fiercely criticised by human rights advocates.

With similar legislation now heading towards the UK parliament and a vote expected before Christmas, the question facing England and Wales is whether Canada offers a model or a warning

In-depth analysis here: https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/canada-assisted-dying-law-wm7zfnpqv

Content warning: Distressing themes, suicide

Last month, a 3D-printed pod was used for the first time in a forest on the Swiss-German border to end a person's life. An unnamed 64-year-old American woman pressed the pod’s button to release deadly nitrogen gas. She died seven minutes later estimated the Swiss assisted suicide group The Last Resort, whose president Florian Willet was present at her death and was later detained for “aiding and abetting” the woman’s suicide. The inventor of the Sarco pod, Phillip Nitschke tried to watch it by video but failed, calling the stream "patchy."

For three decades, Nitschke has tested society’s limits for assisted suicide. His efforts to make deadly drugs more accessible, whether the people who want them are terminally ill or not, caused his medical license to be temporarily stripped in 2014, a book he wrote to be banned, and for people to publicly blame him for the death of their loved ones.

Now he is using his latest device—called Sarco, named after an ancient sarcophagus—to provoke a new debate about the role of doctors in countries where assisted suicide has been made legal. He also think that machines could make "better" decisions than physicians in end-of-life care. Others are skeptical, warning about its dangers.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/the-doctor-behind-the-suicide-pod-wants-ai-to-assist-at-the-end-of-life/

If you or someone you know needs help, call 988 for free, 24-hour support from the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. You can also text HOME to 741-741 for the Crisis Text Line. Outside the US, visit the International Association for Suicide Prevention for crisis centers around the world.

https://youtu.be/IPztufMXya8?si=pqzMMYki2OXnWzOy

In this interview, we discuss Yuill's argument against the legalization of assisted suicide. First, he believes we have a misconception of the dying process that overexaggerates the suffering that most people fear. Second, he believes legalization will pressure people to end their own lives in order to avoid being a burden on others. And third, he believes that we ought to prevent people from dying when we can because, except in extreme situations, we should assume that being alive is a good thing.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/bioethics-and-the-value-of-human-life/0495DF2E44FABF9CDB20AADD57EFC1C6

Greetings! I am a nursing home chaplain with a PhD in the field as well as Advance Practice Board Certified Chaplain with a certification in hospice and palliative care. I'm interested in moving my career progression toward bioethics consultation and IRB/ human subject research ethics. I've been looking into the field and seeing what others have done to prepare it seems that a post-grad certificate would be good (as opposed to an MA or another PhD). I'm looking at the programs at Concordia University- Wisconsin and Medical College of Wisconsin. It seems like the CUW program is more focused on the apologetics side of the field whereas the MCoW is more clinical. In your experience does this matter much? There is a cost difference between the two. I am interested in what program would best situate me in the field for practice.

Also, I've looked at job postings and I don't see much requirement for internship or fellowship experience, is that the case or should I be thinking about that as well? I would love to be able to do that at my institution, but we don't have a standing ethics committee. I've only experienced/ requested a single ethics consult in my 5 years in the field, and I wasn't even included when they met 😆

Hi! I’m looking into masters programs in bioethics in New York City or programs that are remote or nearly remote. My interests are specifically in epistemic justice in mental health care/end of life care and legal procedures/neuroscience/ oversight in medical research. I guess this could extend to law/policy in terms of disability or hospice or laws around end of life procedures. I would like to stay in New York City or do a program that’s remote or nearly remote (I like the look of the John’s Hopkins program but the website currently says you can only do a max of 9 asynchronous credits). The NYU masters looks a little more “creative” than the Columbia program. I want a program that is flexible in its thinking. I was a written arts major in under grad and have some writing published and have since done prerequisites and related jobs post grad for bio ethics so I want a program that will encourage me to think from many angles. I would use the words flexible and creative for the approach. Also need to be part time, at least to start . All suggestions welcome please ! And please share your experiences if you’d like to!

Principlism appears to be the prevailing applied ethical framework in bioethics. Despite the view’s various strengths, critics point out that since the principles are ad hoc, conflicts indubitably emerge leading to inconsistency. There is debate around whether principlism can provide definitive action-guiding moral prescriptions or only help structure intelligent analyses and justifications of moral choices. In this paper, I contend that applying concepts of moral symmetry and moral asymmetry allows us to modify one of principlism’s principles—the principle of beneficence—into what I will call the principle of compassion. I argue that the principle of compassion can function as an arbitrating or primary principle within the principlist framework. The result is a view we might call compassionate principlism. Arguably, compassionate principlism leads to fewer inconsistencies and provides more acceptable action-guiding moral prescriptions than traditional principlism.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11673-024-10373-9?utm_source=rct_congratemailt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=oa_20240924&utm_content=10.1007%2Fs11673-024-10373-9&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1GtLN8ZxOOLgD2LjxnBHBBusRJkWLVxOB2ziGGhNvs0oqjFUC02YzCIn4_aem_jZVN1Vt1VqT-77OsTxJwjw

Hi everyone,

I’m researching neurotechnology and its ethical implications, and I would greatly appreciate your input! The study explores public opinions on neurotechnology's development and future outlook, including brain-computer interfaces, cognitive enhancement, and other cutting-edge innovations in this field.

If you’re interested in neuroscience, technology, or bioethics, your feedback would be incredibly valuable. Whether you’re familiar with the topic or not, your perspective can help shape our understanding of how society views these advancements.
You can access the survey here: Unlocking the Brain: A Public Perspective

Thank you so much for your time and help! If you have any questions about the research, please ask in the comments or message me directly.

I have worked in regulatory affairs for Pharma and biotech for over 25years. My batchelors was biomedical science and I then fell into a biotech job before I even had my final exam results. Fast forward to 2022 I decided to study an LLM in medical law and bioethics. It’s taken a long time as I had a 1 year break to fright breast cancer, but returning for my final two module and dissertation next summer. Staring again this week, and with reflections from my own cancer journey, I’m reminded how much I love looking and arguing bioethics. Has anyone ever moved from regulation to bioethics? Or can give me some more background on bioethics groups in pharma (I think some big pharma companies have this but I have always worked in start- up to midsize or in consultancy so never come across such a group).

Hi, I am a student who's currently taking a course on Bioethics. For my mid-term paper, I have to establish an advice on a bioethical issue. A big part of the paper is a "stakeholder and expert consultation" so I turned to this subreddit as it is clear that everyone here is at least somewhat interested in this theme. If you have some time I would greatly appreciate it if you would share your (moral) perspectives, intuition, doubts etc. with regard to this subject. The rest of the post will be a copy-paste of the bioethical issue at hand. I really appreciate any help you can provide!

Since February 2024, Dutch law permits physician-assisted death for children between the ages of 1 and 12 who are experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. The rationale behind this legislation is that these children, although unable to make a voluntary and well-considered request, should not be subjected to prolonged, unbearable suffering. However, this new law raises questions about how to formulate criteria for physician-assisted death in this age group to minimize potential harms.

Additionally, the implementation of this law has prompted an advocacy group of parents with children who have profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (developmental age < 24 months; estimated IQ < 20) to campaign for further legislation. They mention how their (adult) children, aged 12 and above, are excluded from this law and are also ineligible for euthanasia under Dutch law because they cannot meet the requirement of making a voluntary and well- considered request. These parents argue that excluding their medically fragile children from physician-assisted death could result in prolonged, unbearable suffering, which they believe should be prevented. Consequently, they seek to extend the law to include individuals over 12 years old who suffer unbearably with no prospect of improvement and who lack the capacity to make a voluntary and well considered request.

The Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport, along with the Ministry of Justice and Security, has requested that your ethics advisory board provide guidance on the issues raised. You should (at a minimum) consider the following questions:

• What are the potential harms of allowing physician-assisted death for children aged 1- 12 who suffer unbearably with no prospect of improvement?
• What safeguards should be implemented to minimize these potential harms?
• What are the arguments for and against extending the existing law to individuals aged 12 and older who suffer unbearably with no prospect of improvement and who cannot make a voluntary and well-considered request?
• Are there differences between the two age groups that may justify unequal treatment?
• Would extending the existing law to individuals aged 12 and older who suffer unbearably with no prospect of improvement and who lack the capacity to make a voluntary and well-considered request raise additional considerations regarding potential harms, as well as the need for safeguards to prevent such harms?

Made me think of the book “The Organ Thieves” thought some of you might be interested

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2493253/florida-surgeon-sued-after-mistakenly-removing-patients-liver

https://youtu.be/8r61VEcWPmY

Hello all! Mid-life career change and I was accepted to a MSW program several months ago and just began my first semester. My circumstances have changed and there’s no way I’ll be able to reduce my full time work hours for field practicum and my current job is daytime hours only in an related field (and it’s a decently paying job for the area I live in, but still difficult to afford the cost of living). I’ve decided to transfer into a Masters that won’t require field practicum and I’m extremely interested in a Bioethics program.

My concern is whether there are any viable Bioethics career paths that pay decently well that I can start out in without having to immediately further my education. I really will need to work and pay down student loan debt for a few years before I could consider going back to school again.

Any suggestions are appreciated. Thank you

As we approach 2024, the landscape of healthcare IT is rapidly evolving, and it's essential for bioethicists to stay informed about these changes. From the growing integration of AI and machine learning in diagnostics to the increasing importance of data privacy and security, several trends are poised to reshape the ethical considerations in healthcare.

One major trend is the rise of telemedicine, which can improve access to care but also raises questions about equitable access for marginalized communities. Additionally, the implementation of electronic health records (EHR) continues to provoke discussions about patient consent and the ownership of health data.

With the ongoing development of personalized medicine and genomic data usage, bioethicists must consider the moral implications related to privacy, consent, and potential discrimination. As technologies evolve, so too must our ethical frameworks. What are your thoughts on the trends discussed, and how can we ensure ethical standards keep pace with technological advancements? https://7med.co.uk/key-trends-shaping-healthcare-it-2024/

Who has the rights to claim the autonomy of a deceased person subjected to human experiment? Just a pure innocent question that poped in my mind since I just finished reading Frankeinstein by Mary Shelly. I would be glad to read your comments below.

I have been reading a few articles about using CRISPR for germline editing vs somatic cell editing, as well as the case of He Jiankui and his creation of HIV resistant twins. I understand why there is a case against germline editing in general, but am a bit confused as to why there seems to be an argument over using it to try create HIV resistance in particular.

In this interview, we discuss the ethics of normothermic regional perfusion. NRP involves using a machine to pass blood through organs in a person’s body after the heart has irreversibly stopped beating. Vessels are clamped during this procedure to prevent blood flow to the brain. As a surgical procedure NRP shows a positive impact on utility by reducing non-use of organs without negatively impacting patient outcomes. However, the fact that NRP involves recirculation after declaration of death by circulatory criteria raises concerns about compliance with the Dead Donor Rule and nonmaleficence (do no harm).

https://youtu.be/MGRxWFN8ezo

In this interview, we discuss the ethics of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED), which is an end-of-life option that some people choose to cause their own deaths. One issue we focus on is VSED and advance directives and the possibility that a person may express contrary wishes (from their earlier self) when suffering from dementia. https://youtu.be/K6F7-J7w15A

https://youtu.be/b7gMvVEi9ME

https://youtu.be/PgI3tf66piM

Here is my interview with Art Caplan where we discuss the ethics of vaccine mandates and the issue of holding people responsible for being unvaccinated. The topic of free speech and dissenters is also brought up. https://youtu.be/okufiZtFhXM

Does anyone know what books are read in this course or courses similar to it? Thanks in advance :)

Is there a significant moral change that occurs at birth, morally differentiating a fetus from a newborn infant?
I've read philosophers like Tooley who believe that moral status has to come with something like self awareness or sentience but Mary Anne Warren argues that it can come from the action of being born. She argues this because it marks the end of pregnancy, where the fetus is intimately reliant on the mother and because it begins the infant's existence as a socially responsive member of a human community. I'm struggling to see what gives the moment so much moral importance, what are others thoughts on this?

I am newer to bioethics. I am slowly working on my masters, and with more exposure I feel more frustrated with the way mental illness is largely talked around because it doesn’t fit neatly into medicine. Like the definition of illness or disease for example.

My professional background is psychiatry (social work) in a medical hospital setting. I was motivated to pursue bioethics based on my experiences at the intersection of psychiatry and medicine. But I’m frustrated with the paucity of consideration of mental illness when it comes to bioethics, maybe more so applied ethics. End of life decisions, disability, defining illness, etc.

I think stigma, especially around severe and persistent mental illness, is at play. I wonder about subjectivity of psychiatry and if this keeps people from bringing it into the discourse more often. Whatever the case, I feel frustrated by this. I would love to attend a conference where ethics of psychiatry is the focus, but also hear mental illness more in disability ethics.

Am I just too new and not looking in the right places? Am I reading the room wrong? I often ask questions in class, to speakers, or search for seminars which are around but few, and feel like something is missing.

Can anyone point me in the right direction? To whatever corner of bioethics is chatting collectively about mental health the ways we discuss physical?

Thanks in advance for reading my ramble.

I was wondering what moral reasons might there be to not allow a family to choose for their genetic line whether some dysfunctional gene will be heritable and is there a morally significant difference between parents choosing for all future biological children to not inherit such a gene, on the one hand, and parents choosing somatic therapy for their current children for the same disease?

I was also wondering if germ-line therapy were approved federally, what possible ethical risks and harms would need to be simultaneously mitigated?

Would like to hear some thoughts on this