The possibility of generating incidental findings — in both research and clinical contexts — has long been regarded as a risk of these enterprises. Should incidental findings (IFs) in research also be regarded as potential benefits? At first glance, it would seem they ought to be. After all, in particular circumstances or given a particular set of values, any piece of information can be beneficial. Therefore, it may seem incoherent or unduly paternalistic to regard IFs only as risks. Moreover, developments in science and technology increasingly transform what was once of uncertain meaning and dubious value into information that is likely to have clear meaning and potential personal value, if not obvious clinical utility. For these reasons, it would seem that in the future, IFs should be treated as potential benefits in the design and regulation of research.

Since the fourth century, B.C.E., the Oath of Hippocrates has been the starting point in analyzing the obligations of physicians to protect the privacy and confidentiality interests of their patients. The pertinent provision of the Oath reads as follows: “What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account must be spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.”

This part of the Oath is subject to more than one interpretation, but its commonly accepted meaning provides the ethical foundation for the physician’s duty of confidentiality. The Oath expressly declares that a physician’s obligation of confidentiality applies beyond matters of medical care. At a time when there were no hospitals or physician offices, patients received medical care in their homes or in public places. Physicians treating patients in their homes could be expected to see and hear a wide range of activities that might be considered embarrassing, immoral, or even illegal.

The vulnerability of patients receiving significantly innovative neurosurgical procedures, either as research or as non-standard therapy, presents particularly potent challenges for those attempting to substantially advance clinical Neurosurgical practice in the most ethically and efficacious manner. This beginning formulation has built into it several important notions about research participation, balancing values, and clinical advancement in the context of neurological illness. For the time being, allow vulnerability to act as a placeholder for circumstances or states of being wherein the established checks and balances of power and interest are no longer sufficient in promoting the just treatment of persons. Further, the phrase to substantially advance Neurosurgical practice encompasses radical innovation as well as significant research into new procedures. Finally, few of these explorations involve true randomized placebo controlled trials, but rather they enroll patients rightfully hoping for some benefit by means of undergoing the procedure.

When a neurosurgeon asks me, as an ethicist, to meet with a patient who has medically refractory disease and no good standard therapy options remaining, he is asking for help concerning whether to offer, as a last chance, an unproven therapy as either innovation or research.

Antibiotic use triggers evolutionary and ecological responses from bacteria, leading to antibiotic resistance and harmful patient outcomes. Two complementary strategies support long-term antibiotic effectiveness: conservation of existing therapies and production of novel antibiotics. Conservation encompasses infection control, antibiotic stewardship, and other public health interventions to prevent infection, which reduce antibiotic demand. Production of new antibiotics allows physicians to replace existing drugs rendered less effective by resistance.

In recent years, physicians and policymakers have raised concerns about the pipeline for new antibiotics, pointing to a decline in the number of antibiotics approved since the 1980s. This trend has been attributed to high research and development costs, low reimbursement for antibiotics, and regulatory standards for review and approval. Professional societies and researchers around the world have called for renewed emphasis on antimicrobial stewardship, while also supporting antibiotic research and development through grants, changes to intellectual property laws to extend market exclusivity periods, and modification of premarket testing regulations to reduce antibiotic development time and expenses.

In 1997, the United States incarcerated over 1.7 million persons in local jails and in state and federal prisons. These inmates are disproportionately poor and persons of color. Many lack adequate access to health care before incarceration and present to correctional services with major unaddressed medical problems.

Convictions for drug possession and use have increased the number of injection drug users with HIV and AIDS in prisons. Determinate sentencing and “three strikes and you’re out” laws have increased the number of inmates who are aging and dying during their sentences. Their feelings reflect those of Larry Rideau, sentenced to life without parole and founder of The Angolite—an award-winning prison newspaper at Louisiana's Angola Prison—“The dream of getting out, you equate with heaven. Dying in prison you equate with hell.”

In this paper, we claim that we can only seek to eradicate the stigma associated with the contemporary opioid overdose epidemic when we understand how opioid stigma and the epidemic have co-evolved. Rather than conceptualizing stigma as a parallel social process alongside the epidemiologically and physiologically defined harms of the epidemic, we argue that the stigmatized history of opioids and their use defines the epidemic. We conclude by offering recommendations for disrupting the burden of opioid stigma.

The term “Electronic Health Records” (EHR) means something different to each of the stakeholders in health care, but it always seems to carry a degree of emotional baggage. Increasingly, EHRs are advertized as a nearly unmitigated good that will transform medical care, improve safety and efficiency, allow better patient engagement, and open the door to an era of cheap, effective, timely, and patient-centered care. Indeed, for some EHR proponents the benefits of adopting them are so obvious that adoption has become an end in itself. But for others — and especially for a number of skeptical practitioners and patients — EHR is a code word that portends the corporate transformation of health care delivery, the loss of patient privacy, the demand that patients bear more responsibility in health care, and the unreflective takeover of the health care system by people who do not understand medical care or how health care relationships unfold.

The standards for medical education in the United States now go above and beyond traditional basic science and clinical subjects. Bioethics, health law, and health economics are recognized as important parts of translating physicians’ technical competence in medicine into effective research, administration, and medical care for patients. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), which establishes certification requirements for medical schools, requires all medical schools to include bioethics in their curricula. Furthermore, issues such as the growth of genetic testing, end-of-life decision making for a burgeoning elderly population, confidentiality in the era of electronic medical records, and allocation of scarce medical resources make bioethics training clearly necessary for physicians. Although 16 percent of the United States GDP is devoted to health care, the LCME does not currently mandate training in health law or health economics. Furthermore, as the Schiavo case and HIPAA remind us, legal directives influence medical practice in areas such as billing, confidentiality, and end-of-life care.

Ethical principles for the protection of human subjects in clinical research are now well recognized, and rooted in the inherent worth and dignity of the individual.

Respect for persons recognizes people as autonomous agents and requires that their choices be observed. For persons who are not fully autonomous, the principle of respect for persons requires that they are protected from risks and adverse consequences of research, even sometimes excluded from research.

Beneficence (do good) and non-maleficence (do no harm) are complementary ethical principles that impose affirmative duties on researchers to maximize any benefits for subjects and minimize any risks. Thus, researchers must go beyond mere respect for a person's choices. The researcher must be vigilant to ensure that the subject receives all possible benefits and avoids all possible harms from participating in the research.

DNA identification methods are such an established part of our law enforcement and criminal justice systems it is hard to believe that the technologies were developed as recently as the mid-1980s, and that the databases of law enforcement profiles were established in the 1990s. Although the first databases were limited to the DNA profiles of convicted rapists and murderers, the success of these databases in solving violent crimes provided the impetus for Congress and state legislatures to expand the scope of the databases with little critical examination of each expansion's value to law enforcement or cost to privacy and civil liberties.

We are now entering a new stage of DNA forensics, in which successive database expansions over the last decade have raised the possibility of creating a population-wide repository. In addition, new applications of DNA profiling, including familial and low stringency searches, have been added to DNA dragnets, the use of medical samples for forensic analysis, and other measures to create a series of crucial, yet largely unexplored, second-generation legal and policy issues.

The last twenty-five years of published literature and curriculum development in bioethics suggest that the field enjoys a successful and stable marriage to philosophical ethical theory. However, the next twenty-five years could be very different. I believe the marriage is troubled. Divorce is conceivable and perhaps likely. The most philosophical parts of bioethics may retreat to philosophy departments, while bioethics continues on its current course toward a more interdisciplinary and practical field.

I make no presumption that bioethics is integrally linked to philosophical ethical theory. Indeed, I assume that the connection is contingent and fragile. Many individuals in law, theological ethics, political theory, the social and behavioral sciences, and the health professions carefully address mainstream issues of bioethics without finding ethical theory essential or breathtakingly attractive. This is not surprising. Moral philosophers have traditionally formulated theories of the right, the good, and the virtuous in the most general terms.

This article presents an overview for clinician investigators on the concepts of decision-making capacity and vulnerability as related to human subjects research. Tools for capacity assessment and unacknowledged sources of vulnerability are discussed, and the practical gaps in current informed consent requirements related to impaired capacity and potential vulnerability are described. Options are suggested for research discussions when full regulatory consent is not possible and an exception from informed consent does not apply.

This article argues that public health campaigns have an ethical obligation to combat fat stigma, not mobilize it in the “war on obesity.” Fat stigma is conceptualized, and a review is undertaken of how pervasive fat stigma is across the world and across the lifespan. By reviewing the negative impacts of fat stigma on physical health, mental health, and health seeking behaviors, fat stigma is clearly identified as a social determinant of health. Considering the role of fat stigma in public health, and the arguments made for using stigmatisation in public health campaigns to promote population health, it is concluded that it is a violation of public health ethics to use stigma as a tool in combatting fatness. The article concludes by making recommendations of how public health in New Zealand can combat, rather than reinforce, fat stigma.

Patient safety has assumed a prominent role on the policy agenda since the Institute of Medicine report To Err Is Human was released in November 1999. The report maintained that medical error is the predominant mechanism by which patients in the United States and around the world are injured. This finding, along with the report’s recommendation for a “systems” approach to reducing medical error, provided an extremely important insight into the operation of our medical delivery system. Clearly, while advances in medical technology, diagnostic techniques, and knowledge provide the foundation for saving lives, medical error has resulted in their loss. However, recognition that medical error is a primary cause of these avoidable patient injuries and deaths is a key one and may result in improvements within our system of health-care delivery as well as minimization of the emotional and financial toll that iatrogenic injury causes.

Bioethics is currently witnessing unprecedented debate over the moral and legal norms governing the conduct of clinical research. At the center of this debate is the duty of care in clinical research, and its most widely accepted specification, clinical equipoise. In recent work, we have argued that equipoise and cognate concepts central to the ethics of clinical research have been left unnecessarily vulnerable to criticism. We have suggested that the vulnerability lies in the conspicuous absence of an articulated foundation in moral and legal theory of the physician-researcher's duty of care to the patient-subject. We have repeatedly suggested that the requisite foundation is in the ethics of trust and the law of fiduciaries.

Curiously, despite the absence of a published thorough exposition of our position, some have preemptively criticized our suggestion that the relationship between physician-researcher and patient-subject is fiduciary. Others have offered their own accounts of the implications of fiduciary law for the relationship.

The question of how to handle incidental findings (IFs) has sparked a heated debate among neuroimaging researchers and medical ethicists, a debate whose urgency stems largely from the recent explosion in the number of imaging studies being conducted and in the sheer volume of scans being acquired. Perhaps the point of greatest controversy within this debate is whether the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of all research participants should be reviewed in an active search for pathology and, moreover, whether this search should be performed by a radiologist. Resistance to routine readings performed by radiologists, as opposed to selective review of those scans on which investigators have spotted a possible IF, has been fueled in part by the obvious and enormous cost — financial and logistical — of engaging radiologists to read massive numbers of scans. This cost would be especially burdensome, even prohibitive, to investigators who are not affiliated with a medical center, because of their limited access to radiologists and other medical expertise.

The new science of genomics endeavors to chart the genomes of individuals around the world, with the dual goals of understanding the role genetic factors play in human health and solving problems of disease and disability. From the perspective of indigenous peoples and developing countries, the promises and perils of genomic science appear against a backdrop of global health disparity and political vulnerability. These conditions pose a dilemma for many communities when attempting to decide about participating in genomic research or any other biomedical research. Genomic research offers the possibility of improved technologies for managing the acute and chronic diseases that plague their members. Yet, the history of biomedical research among people in indigenous and developing nations offers salient examples of unethical practice, misuse of data and failed promises. This dilemma creates risks for communities who decide either to participate or not to participate in genomic science research.

Until recently, genetics counselors and medical geneticists considered themselves lucky if they could provide parents with predictive information about a small number of severe genetic disorders. Testing and counseling were indicated primarily for conditions of thithis s sort. Out of respect for the autonomy of parental reproductive decision making, the prevailing ethic of genetic counseling stressed nondirectiveness and value neutrality As summarized by Arthur Caplan, the hallmarks of this stance include