Philosopher Mary Midgely’s observation that it is helpful to think of the world as “a huge aquarium” has application to bioethics today. She says, “We cannot see it as a whole from above so we peer at it through a number of small windows, . . . but if we insist that our own window is the only one worth looking through, we should not get very far.”

At the end of a paper on international research ethics published in the July-August 2010 issue of the Hastings Center Report, London and Zollman argue the need for grounding our duties in international medical and health-related research within a broader normative framework of social, distributive, and rectificatory justice. The same goes for Thomas Pogge, who, in a whole range of publications during the past years, has argued for a human-rights-based approach to international research. In a thought-provoking paper in the June 2010 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics, Angela J. Ballantyne argues that “the global bioethics priority” in medical and health-related research ethics today is how to do research fairly in an unjust world.

Cameroon is a Central African country lying at latitude 6°N and longitude 12°E. The country has a surface area of circa 475,442 square kilometers, and is bordered by several other African countries: Nigeria, Chad, the Central African Republic, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon. With a population of nearly 20 million inhabitants, Cameroon is a very diverse country, geographically, culturally, and linguistically.

New Zealand is a South Pacific nation with a history of British colonization since the 19th century. It has a population of over four million people and, like other indigenous societies such as in Australia and Canada, Māori are now a minority in their land, and their experience of colonization is that of being dominated by settlers to the detriment of their own systems of society.

The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights adopted by UNESCO in 2005 advocates for the establishment of independent, multidisciplinary, and pluralist ethics committees at national, regional, local, or institutional levels. The purpose of these committees is (a) to evaluate the relevant ethical, legal, scientific, and social issues related to research involving human beings; (b) to provide advice on ethical problems in clinical settings; (c) to assess scientific and technological development, formulate recommendations, and contribute to the preparation of guidelines; and (d) to foster debate, education, and public awareness of and engagement in bioethics (Article 19). Already in the very first draft of the Declaration the need to promote and establish national bioethics committees was mentioned. Although the text was gradually elaborated, the same basic idea has been preserved throughout the process of drafting, negotiating, and adopting the text.

The first clinical ethics committees (CEC) in Norway were established in 1996. This started as an initiative from hospital clinicians, the Norwegian Medical Association, and health authorities and politicians. Norwegian hospitals are, by and large, publicly funded through taxation, and all inpatient treatment is free of charge. Today, all the 23 hospital trusts (providing specialized and hospital-based healthcare services to the Norwegian population of 4.9 million people) have established at least one committee. Center for Medical Ethics (SME), University of Oslo, receives an annual amount of US$335,000 from the Ministry of Health and Care Services to coordinate the committees and to facilitate competency building for committee members.

One of the most significant developments in the area of reproductive health in Ireland is the Roche v. Roche [2009] case. The case concerned a woman who wished to implant cryopreserved embryos made with a former partner, against the partner’s wishes. Of particular interest are questions about the status of the embryo: in Ireland the life of “the unborn” is constitutionally protected. Therefore the courts in Roche had to decide whether embryos were “unborn” within the meaning of the Irish Constitution.

A wide variety of bioethical themes have recently been debated and researched in Sweden, including genetic screening, HPV vaccination strategies, end-of-life care, injustices and priority setting in healthcare, dual-use research, and the never-ending story of scientific fraud. Also, there are some new events related to Swedish biobanking that might be of general interest. Here we will concentrate on four themes: end-of-life care, dual-use research, scientific fraud, and biobanking.

NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) is responsible for the procurement and allocation of human organs in the United Kingdom. Its main role is to “ensure that organs donated for transplant are matched and allocated to patients in a fair and unbiased way.” NHSBT’s liver allocation policies are underpinned by the National Liver Transplant Standards, a document published by the Department of Health in 2005 to oversee patient care, patient assessment, liver allocation and transplantation, education and training, and research and development. NHSBT has developed its own liver allocation protocols under the powers assigned to it by the Department of Health, which include a “super-urgent” liver allocation policy, a Liver Allocation Sequence, and pediatric candidate liver allocation protocols.

Since the development of the first neural prosthesis, that is, the cochlear implant in 1957, neural prosthetics have been one of the highly promising, yet most challenging areas of medicine, while having become a clinically accepted form of invasiveness into the human body. Neural prosthetic devices, of which at least one part is inserted into the body, interact directly with the nervous system to restore or replace lost or damaged sensory, motor, or cognitive functions. This field is not homogenous and encompasses a variety of technologies, which are in various stages of development. Some devices are well established in clinical practice and have become routine, such as cochlear implants. By comparison, other technologies are in experimental phases and still need to be further developed to achieve the desired results.

This paper is structured in three sections. The first discusses the institutional framework pertaining to bioethics in Serbia. The functioning of this framework is critically assessed and a number of recommendations for its improvement presented. It is also emphasized that philosophers are underrepresented in public debate on bioethics in Serbia. Second, this underrepresentation will be related to two issues that figure prominently in Serbian society but are not accompanied by corresponding bioethical discourses: the first is abortion and the second is the largely unrestricted use of neuropharmacology since the 1990s, both for therapeutic and for cosmetic/recreational purposes. Finally, the perspective of bioethics in Serbia is addressed. It is asserted that this perspective can be based on the enhancement of public philosophical debate on bioethical issues, especially those with notable features in Serbian society (such as abortion and neuropharmacology). Such enhancement would also strengthen the corresponding institutional and legal frameworks.

It is a funny thing with the Dutch. On one hand, they seem preoccupied with death and adamant that patients be allowed to decide for themselves in what way they want to die. On the other, contrary to popular belief, the Dutch physician is allotted a very influential role in treatment decisions, far more prominent than in many other Western countries. From an American perspective Dutch professional ethics may seem quite paternalistic: a patient’s freedom to decide to have a particular medical treatment is limited by the physician’s professional assessment of the medical need of this treatment. The question arises: What is the relationship between the professional responsibility of Dutch physicians and the right of Dutch patients to decide for themselves? This question is illustrated by the ongoing national debate in The Netherlands on euthanasia and the growing demand for a further reaching right to self-determination concerning ending one’s life. However, contrary to popular belief, not all Dutch ethical debate concerns end-of-life questions.

In China, state investment into public hospitals has radically decreased since the early 1980s and has brought on the dismantling of the healthcare system in most parts of the country, especially in rural areas. As a result of this overhaul, the majority of public hospitals have needed to compete in the so-called socialist market economy. The market economy stimulated public hospitals to modernize, take on highly qualified medical professionals, and dispense new therapies and drugs. At same time, liberalization has clearly affected the attitude and behavior of both medical professionals and the general public. The public has many concerns about the healthcare system for various reasons: there are long hospital waiting lists, patients experience difficulties in obtaining an appointment to see a qualified doctor, and, over the past decades, there has been an increase in out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure. These and other changes in post-reform China have radically reshaped the doctor–patient interaction, which is increasingly eroded by tension and violence.

These CQ Sources were compiled by Bette Anton.

Animals, in the age of biotechnology, are the subjects of a myriad of scientific procedures, interventions, and modifications. They are created, altered, and experimented upon—often with highly beneficial outcomes for humans in terms of knowledge gained and applied, yet not without concern also for the effects upon the experimental subjects themselves: consideration of the use of animals in research remains an intensely debated topic. Concerns for animal welfare in scientific research have, however, been primarily directed at harm to and suffering of animal subjects and their prevention. Little attention has been paid to the benefits research might potentially produce for animals themselves and the interests that some animals may therefore have in the furtherance of particular avenues of science.

Healthcare ethics has become part of the standard curriculum of students in the health professions. The goals of healthcare ethics education are to give students the skills they need to identify, assess, and address ethical issues in clinical practice and to develop virtuous practitioners. Incorporating the medical humanities into medical school, for example, is intended to foster empathy and professionalism among students and to provide mechanisms for enhanced physician well-being. Yet, despite the long-standing inclusion of the humanities in nursing curricula, increases in the amount and kinds of scientific knowledge essential for clinical practice has resulted in the erosion of the “humanistic arts” from nursing education. One potential solution to this challenge comes with the increase in interprofessional education, where students in a variety of healthcare professions programs come together to learn about issues common to all healthcare fields.

Readers are invited to contact Greg S. Loeben in writing at Midwestern University, Glendale Campus, Bioethics Program, 19555 N. 59th Ave., Glendale, AZ 85308 (gloebe@midwestern.edu) regarding books they would like to see reviewed or books they are interested in reviewing.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editors Kenneth V. Iserson and Barry Morenz at bmorenz@email.arizona.edu.