Skip to content

How not to criticize the NHS

How not to criticize the NHS

The British National Health Service (the NHS) has been in news a lot recently. First it was the Investor's Business Daily in the US, which claimed that:

'People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.'

This is a particularly ridiculous claim as Stephen Hawking of course has lived in the UK all of his life! He responded saying:

Read More »How not to criticize the NHS

Should early non invasive prenatal testing be opposed?

It is now possible to detect fetal problems with just a sample of the pregnant woman’s blood. Women will probably be offered this test routinely in the first trimester. But the breakthroughs are said to raise serious ethical questions.

In 2008 Fan et al. (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.USA 2008; 105:16266–16271) non-invasively diagnosed fetal chromosome abnormality from cell-free DNA in maternal blood. Recently, at least two companies have announced plans to introduce non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) into health care.

The clinical role of NIPD is unclear. It could be used either as a screening test (with CVS or amniocentesis still required as a follow up diagnostic test) or it might replace invasive tests. Less likely, it might be interposed between current screening and invasive tests.

The most exciting, and potentially controversial, role of NIPD is if it can replace current invasive tests. Prenatal (cyto)genetic diagnosis could be achieved much earlier in pregnancy.

Read More »Should early non invasive prenatal testing be opposed?

The party line and the flu-line

It has emerged over the weekend that the UK government ignored the advice of a key panel of scientific advisors in the formulation of its pandemic response. The panel advised against the mass prescription of antivirals (Tamiflu) because of the fear that this would accelerate resistance of the virus (see also this previous post in the pandemic ethics series). An expert in influenza, Hugh Pennington, has even called for the national flu hotline to be shut down. It appears that the government may have been influenced in its pandemic response by political sensitivities.

Read More »The party line and the flu-line

Symposium Announcement: Human Enhancement: What should be permitted?

The Brocher Foundation, and the Universities of Oxford and Geneva are pleased to announce the Symposium: Human Enhancement: What should be permitted? 20-21 October 2009, Brocher Centre, Geneva, Switzerland Biomedical science is increasingly yielding technologies that can be used to enhance the capacities of healthy people, as well as to treat disease. This two-day workshop… Read More »Symposium Announcement: Human Enhancement: What should be permitted?

Should we forget about organic food?

A recent
report by the Food Standards Agency argues that organic food doesn’t bring any
substantial nutritional benefits compared to conventionally produced food.
This contradicts the conclusions of previous studies suggesting organic food to
be nutritionally superior. As one might have expected, supporters of organic
farming have been critical of the report, yet it is unfortunate that the media
coverage on this issue often gives the impression that organic food has been
shown to be a sham (some consumer groups thus expect shoppers to now “think
twice before buying organic”)
and that its advocates are now reduced to using any bad argument they can think
of to prove the contrary. This impression is understandable but misleading.

Read More »Should we forget about organic food?

Artificial Brains and Personal Identity

Professor Henry Markram, Director of the Blue Brain Project in Switzerland, has told a conference in Oxford that an artificial human brain is achievable within a decade: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/5894875/Artificial-human-brain-could-be-built-in-next-decade.html What would count as a ‘human brain’ is debatable, of course, but the prospect of an artificial grounding for cognitive and other mental functions raises many fundamental… Read More »Artificial Brains and Personal Identity

Four… three… two… one… I am now authorized to use physical force!

Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial
Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield, warns that we are well on our way to get military killer robots that have great autonomy in applying deadly force. Current military "robots" such as UAVs have limited autonomy. They are
remotely controlled by humans, but increasingly given ability to
patrol, find targets and attack on their own. It would be a natural
progression to give them increasingly free reign, with the humans
merely granting permission – but in an active situation human reactions
might be too slow. Will the current convention that a properly trained
military human operator has to make the final decision still hold true
in the future?

Read More »Four… three… two… one… I am now authorized to use physical force!

Is it wrong to raise money for charity?

The Guardian yesterday reports on the struggles of independent secondhand bookshops to compete with what one of its interviewees describes as “the Tesco of the second-hand book world”: Oxfam. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that Oxfam is now the biggest secondhand book retailer in Europe (though perhaps it shouldn't given that this is not a market with many large players). Apparently many small second-hand bookstores are complaining about what they see as Oxfam's unfair competition.

Read More »Is it wrong to raise money for charity?

R. v Dudley & Stephens

By David Edmonds

We at the Uehiro Centre keep a careful watch on the latest developments and pride ourselves on being bang up to date with the news.  So I’m pleased to be able to bring you the story of an episode that occurred on the night of July 25th.

Well, July 25th 1884.  125 years ago.

Read More »R. v Dudley & Stephens

A change of heart

Earlier this week fourteen-year old Hannah Jones received a heart transplant. This is eight months after Hannah hit the news for her refusal to have the surgery. There was much debate in the media (including this blog) at the time about whether or not teenagers should be allowed to refuse life-saving treatment, though overall there was a lot of support for Hannah’s decision.

But in the last week Hannah has apparently changed her mind, and elected to have the surgical procedure. What is the significance of this for the decision to go along with her earlier choice? Hannah might well have died in the last 8 months, in which case she would never have had a chance to rethink her position on transplants. Does the fact that she has now changed her mind give us more reason, in future, to overrule similar patients who are declining live-saving treatment?

Read More »A change of heart