Medical Ethics Stories Focus on Questions of Duty and Obligation
Feb 1st, 2010 • Posted in: NewsBritish agency says doctor who started vaccination scare acted unethically; new and improved “morning after” birth control pill raises moral objections; ethicists debate whether doctors’ role in producing weapons is unethical — or an ethical obligation because “medicalized” weapons can prevent suffering
LONDON and NEW YORK
Medical-ethics stories received coverage around the globe last week. Among the pieces:
- A British regulatory agency ruled that a doctor who created turmoil by suggesting that a vaccination against childhood diseases caused autism acted unethically in carrying out his research, the Agence France-Presse reports. Dr. Andrew Wakefield wrote a 1998 paper saying there could be a connection the vaccine and the disability, leading to a sharp decline in the numbers of parents inoculating their children against measles, mumps, and rubella. TIME magazine reports that the medical authorities ruled that Wakefield failed to disclose conflicts of interest and exhibited “callous disregard” for the children involved in his study. The journal that originally published the study has disavowed it, and other studies have failed to confirm the hypothesis, according to TIME, which notes that Wakefield says he still stands by his work.
- A new “morning after” birth control pill can work up to five days after sex, reports the London Telegraph. While the scientific evidence about the pill’s effectiveness appears convincing, the Telegraph notes that moral issues concern some critics, who claim that the extra safety net could encourage casual sex and prompt couples to be less diligent about using condoms. The pill is currently available by prescription but could is expected to be available over the counter in two or three years.
- ABC News reports that “medicalized” weapons are at the center of an ethics debate, with some saying doctors should not be involved in designing combat devices, while others argue that the inventions are kinder and gentler because of medical participation. For example, ABC reports, physicians are involved in developing nonlethal weapons to temporarily disable targets by disorienting them with chemicals or lights that cause neurological disruption. Some, such as Michael Gross, professor of political science at Israel’s University of Haifa, go so far as to say that “if these weapons prove effective [at preventing undue civilian death], there is an obligation for doctors to get involved,” notes ABC.
Sources: Telegraph, Jan. 29 — TIME, Jan. 29 — AFP, Jan. 29 — ABC, Jan. 29.
For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 4 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 21, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 7, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 16, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 2, 2009.
Print This Story
Email This Story
