Bioethics Project

As the Macquarie dictionary defines, ethics are “the justification for and formal reasoning behind human moral behaviour.” Therefore bioethics are ethics which deal with issues to do with life, medicine, science, law and religion, this vast mix of subjects often making it difficult to have clear bioethical answers. Jewish people have their own set of bioethics derived from their covenant with God. Thus Jews follow “ethical monotheism” the belief in one God who reveals the law and in return protects them. Looking at the topics of euthanasia, abortion and human cloning, one can see the bioethical teachings of the Jewish people and where they come from.

Two exceptions to confidentiality in healthcare settings would be mental health patients and them presenting a serious threat to self or others. The Privacy Rule permits the care provider to disclose necessary patient information to law enforcement and family members. Another exception to confidentiality in a healthcare setting would

Scenario 1: You are the healthcare administrator of a nursing home. You are informed by your Admissions Director that a new memory-impaired resident has been admitted into your long-term care unit. The staff is concerned about the involvement of family with your resident. Family members from out-of-town arrived and expressed concern about your resident’s do not resuscitate (DNR) orders which were authorized by the Power of Attorney of another family member. A quarrel erupts in the nursing home with family members voicing their opinions loudly. You arrive on the scene and are immediately told by the visiting family member, “Do you know who I am? I am a supervisor for the Department of Health and Human Services and will not hesitate to have your facility surveyed for noncompliance.” What do you do?

A good thing of having a designer baby is that the baby won’t have any problems it will live happy that it is immune to dangerous diseases. Designer babies can be the future of humanity they can be smarter, more fit and healthy it can help society in a good way. Either way instead of designer baby’s there is gene modification.

With the numerous legal, ethical and moral issues that were highlighted in Henrietta Lacks case, two major ones to note: 1) the Lacks never specifically consented to providing samples of Henrietta’s cervical tissue for research, and 2) Johns Hopkins University releasing Henrietta’s name and medical records to third parties without her or her family’s

Bioethics is a very diverse and subjective issue in Buddhism that bases its self around fundamental Buddhist laws such as the five precepts, the four Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold path. Each Buddhist variant approaches bioethics differently based on the variants primary goal, ideals or practices. However all Buddhists views of bioethics are somewhat influenced by the universal goal of Buddhism to become liberated from the constant cycle of reincarnation or samsara. In conjecture with Buddhism, the occurrence of samsara allows for one to attain a new view on everything including bioethics allowing for the chance to discover or come to an ultimate realisation which in turn allows for the ultimate realisation of issues relating to

As research and technology progress forward in time, the ethical considerations that must be taken along with, not only method of study but social ramifications continues to grow exponentially. At the time when cells were taken unknowingly from Mrs. Lacks, there were not strict regulatory guidelines as to how consent should be required along with many other now ill-practice methods of medicine seen at the time. Despite agreeing that the

Research ethics were being debated in US courts so that they could sanctioned in the 1950s. Due to a court case never being made over the issue of Henrietta’s cells being researched on, “it would be decades before anyone thought to ask whether informed consent should apply in cases like [her’s], where scientists conduct research on tissues no longer attached to a person’s body” (Skloot 132). Skloot uses the fact that it was “decades” later till “anyone thought to ask” about tissues detached from the body. Since no one spoke up on this issue there were no court cases like Henrietta’s so researching on her cells was tolerated during that time period. Concurrently in a civil court case, “a patient named Martin Salgo...went under anesthesia for what he thought was a routine procedure and woke up permanently paralyzed from the waist down. The doctor hadn’t told him the procedure carried any risks at all. The judge ruled against the doctor saying… there needed to be ‘full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent’ “ (Skloot 132). Skloot employs a specific example of a judge ruling in favor of informed consent with all the risks explained, in order for the reader to question whether the same should apply for conditions like Henrietta’s. Similar to Henrietta’s case, Salgo’s doctor informed him that there were not “any risks” for the medical operation resulting in Salgo being “permanently paralyzed.” Salgo is lied which causes major medical problems that he cannot recover from. As a result, the judge believes that there needs to be “full disclosure of facts” which means the patient must know everything about the medical procedure and any of the risks. Although Henrietta’s cells were no longer a part of her body, she was never informed about

In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot asserts that an individual should own the right their own human tissue after it has been removed. Furthermore, several other accounts similar to Henrietta’s situation emphasize the importance of informed consent. Although in some cases, consent forms were signed, these were not informed decisions. As doctors in all of the cases presented have failed to disclose to their patients the value of their bodies. Even though this occurrence may hinder future scientific research, it is possible that the possession of someone’s DNA could ruin the rest of their lives, as it identifies what diseases that they may acquire. Therefore, to ensure the protection of our rights, it is moralistic that individuals

This initial inquiry started a large controversy, evolving to the larger issues that we still have today over cervical and stem cell lines. The core ethical issue, in both the case of stem cell research and in the Henrietta Lacks case, is one of informed consent. Stem cells, particularly those for research purposes, are gathered from embryonic tissue, which begs the question; who gives consent? There are many who hesitate to advocate the use of stem cell research even today, and there are even more individuals who are strongly opposed to such research without the informed consent of the individual.

Ethics throughout science are very controversial as they are the model of distinguishing between right and wrong throughout all aspects of research. Throughout Honeybee Democracy and The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks we are given an insider’s perspective into the ethics, or the lack there of, regarding the ongoing research and the researchers conducting it. Although the books cover very different subject matter, there are divisions of their research and within their individual ethics that are almost indistinguishable.

Henrietta Lacks died never knowing the amazing impact that she would have on the growth of humanity. Not only did she not know of the tissue samples that were taken from her, but her family was also unaware of the sampled cells. This came as a surprise to them, and they were understandably angry after hearing how corporations profited from cells taken from their now deceased mother, adding insult to injury. Their discontent with the use of their mother's cells was one of the first of its kind, a new ethical dilemma for a new scientific age. Although I think that the way that the scientists used the HeLa cells was warranted, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks documents how far ethics in medicine has come

I personally do not agree with the idea of designer babies as you are changing the outcome of your baby and you are not accepting them as they are, you are changing their appearance the traits they would have had. You can’t use the excuse for medical reasons as cancer or heart disease develop over time and not when the baby is born. Now having a child is a big responsibility and if you are already deciding how you want your kid and what you want them to look like you might not be ready for a child. You should accept your child for who they are if you get a kid with a bad personality what's the point of being a parent if you can’t show them the right path or how to act. The child will no longer be yours but be the laboratories “experiment”.

The issue of bioethics has become so prevalent it has also arisen in popular culture. The best example of this being the movie Repo! The Genetic Opera¸ which takes place in the future, years after an epidemic of organ failure wreaked havoc on the population of man. During this time a “savior” arose in the form of Rotti Largo who developed the Bio-Tech Company GeneCo. GeneCo

When it comes to the subject of designer babies, or even the thought of being able to create a 'perfect' child there is either controversy or pure relief. The reason being because when it comes to designing babies there is good as well as bad. For example some may say being able to genetically modify a baby so it has no chances of coming out deformed or even with mental or psychical diseases and disabilities is a miracle. Others may say that in the law of ethics this can not be acceptable. The fact the you're choosing your child's fate is ‘wrong’ stating that whether a child ends up with a disease is life, we should not be able to control it. Which makes sense yes, unless you're talking about two parents who can't have children because