Many readers of this blog will have come across the work of Niall Scott, a bioethicist at UCLAN.

Anyone who’s ever met him will also know that he’s one of the nicest anarcho-syndicalist black metal fans you’re ever likely to encounter; and he popped up on Radio 4’s Sunday programme this week to talk about the facebook campaign to get metal recorded as a religion on the 2011 census.  Zip forward to about 11 minutes…

(Thanks to Jurgen de Wispelaere for the pointer.)

I didn’t pay much attention the Wakefield MMR paper when it first started generating controversy: I wasn’t bothered whether its conclusions were correct or not, because I figured that it’s in the nature of science for certain putative discoveries later to be debunked.  But the years passed, and as I paid a bit more attention, it began to be clear that there was more to the story than a disagreement about how to interpret data.  Over at Ministry of Truth, Unity provides a nice little account of just what was wrong not just with Wakefield’s research findings, but with the research wholesale: I won’t reproduce the litany of problems that have been raised, but it’s worth remembering that, notwithstanding GMC censure and the retraction of his paper, he’s still working at a clinic in Texas seemingly funded by anti-vaccination campaigners… which brings me nicely to this little gem, reported in last week’s New York Times, from Jim Moody.  Moody speaks on behalf of an organisation that promotes the supposed link between the MMR vaccination and autism, and he thinks that “the retraction would strengthen Dr. Wakefield’s credibility with many parents.” more…

A call for participants in a satellite meeting of the 10th World Congress of Bioethics, Singapore on the 27TH JULY 2010, Sponsored by the Wellcome Trust.

The Wellcome Trust is pleased to invite applications for participation in a one-day meeting on the concept of community in bioethics. The meeting will explore different understandings of the concept of ‘community’ and the role it should play in normative decision making from different philosophical and cultural positions, using four case studies, two from the world of research ethics - biobanking and genomics research, and emergency health -related research - and two from the world of public health ethics - vaccination and resource allocation.

Whilst a particular focus of the meeting will be the different sets of assumptions that different conceptions of ‘community’ and its role carry and the implications of these assumptions, this meeting will also use ‘community’ as a focal point for broader discussions around the plurality of different approaches to doing normative bioethics.

more…

This is probably a bit de trop, because I suspect that many watched it as broadcast - but those who haven’t seen Terry Pratchett’s Dimbleby Lecture can watch it here; I believe that most things on the iplayer get taken down after a while, but I can’t see any indication of there being a limited time for this, so am assuming that it’s going to be available indefinitely.  It’s funny, impassioned and well worth a watch.  I’ll keep an eye out for the availability of a transcript - if anyone finds it, let me know, and I’ll provide a link here.

(It’s worth a mention, too, that he cites this 2007 JME paper.)

UPDATE: Thanks to Dr Gubernaculum for directing me to this shortened version of the lecture.

It’s very easy for a European to feel very smug about socialised medicine.  Maybe the American system isn’t as bad as all that.  Maybe we should be a bit more open about its merits.  And maybe we should, in the process, ignore cases like that of JoAnn Knutson.

Knutson was 72, and had a fall at her home in Des Moines, Iowa.  Her husband, Richard Toews, couldn’t lift her.  For four days, he provided care for her as best he could while she lay on the floor.  And then she died.

Now: there’s an obvious question here.  Why the hell didn’t he call an ambulance?  And the answer is simple: Toews was concerned that he wouldn’t be able to afford it.  Capt. Steve Brown of the Des Moines Fire Department told the Des Moines Register that

an ambulance costs about $575, plus $8 per mile.  People who can’t pay the fee on time can set up a payment plan. Taxpayers pick up the tab for trips that go unpaid.

So Toews was wrong about the price - in part.  But the fact remains that he still had to worry about it to begin with.  Presumably, to get the taxpayer to cough up, there’d have to be some process of proving his inability (otherwise noone’d pay).  And, in a situation like his, that’d perhaps not be the first thing on his mind.

OK, OK.  Four days should have been plenty of time to sort that kind of thing out.  But that still leaves untouched the supposition that it needs to be sorted in the first place.  For the time being - well, the availability of a payment plan for an ambulance doesn’t seem like much of a reassurance.  I’m going to retreat back into smugness about socialised healthcare for a while.

David Shoemaker has an interesting post on PEASoup about the epistemology of advance directives.  Starting from a fairly standard thought-experiment about an older, dementing person who wants to accept treatment that her younger, pre-demented person had refused, he adds to the standard metaphysical arguments a claim that

the real puzzle for ADs isn’t metaphysical, it’s epistemic.  And barring physicians’ having the requisite degree of knowledge, a “better safe than sorry” mentality rules the day.

His exposition of the thought leads him to make a “modest proposal”: more…

The UK government sponsored science web-site for young people Science: [So what? So everything] has paid some futurologists to come up with 20 new jobs that will exist in 20 years time. Among the nano-medics and avatar managers you can also find the ‘New science’ ethicist’ described in the following way:

“‘New science’ ethicist As scientific advances speed up in areas like cloning, we may need a new breed of ethicist who understands the science and helps society make choices about what developments to allow. It won’t be a question of can we, but should we?”

It is heartening to realise that we or at least our successors will still be here in 20 years time, apart from the slightly pejorative implication that the current breed of ethicists do not understand the science and/or do not help society make choices.

So, come on our Masters programmes and be ready for the future!

Saturday morning, 30th January 2010, I - along with many other people - will be taking a massive overdose.  As it happens, I’ll be doing so in a seminar room at the Wellcome Trust, so there will probably be lots of medical sorts nearby.

I’ll tell them not to intervene.  I may even encourage them to join me in overdosing. more…

Daniel Sokol has written this thoughtful piece about the yuck factor and Elderly Mums conceiving children late in life via IVF.

more…

In response to the post below about circumcision, “IntactByDefault” asked a number of questions.  I think that they merit a thread of their own, although I’ve touched on some of the issues before.

Is it not the case that, short of legislation, the role of bioethicists is to put a check on the potentially unethical behaviors of those who practice medicine on humans?

Why have the rights of male children been subordinated to such issues as cultural habit and medically superfluous parental preference or belief?

Why aren’t bioethicists, including yourself, relentlessly shaming and using any other tool at your disposal to correct the behavior of medical practitioners who modify the genitals of children without meeting the ethical standards developed to protect the rights of minors?

more…