{"id":4101,"date":"2021-02-10T03:00:36","date_gmt":"2021-02-10T02:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/?p=4101"},"modified":"2021-02-10T03:00:36","modified_gmt":"2021-02-10T02:00:36","slug":"dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/","title":{"rendered":"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By Hayden P. Nix and Charles Weijer<\/p>\n<p>In a recent <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2020\/12\/08\/close-eneph-sars-cov-2-challenge-studies-and-altruistic-kidney-donation\/\">blog post<\/a>, we sought to answer the narrow question: is altruistic kidney donation sufficiently analogous to participation in a SARS-CoV-2 challenge study to justify the risks of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies? We argued that three morally relevant differences (the risk of adverse effects, the availability of alternatives, and the potential to undermine public trust) undermine the analogy, and that \u201c[a]dvocates of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies must look elsewhere to justify the level of risk in these studies.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/01\/11\/response-to-nix-and-weijer-close-eneph-sars-cov-2-challenge-studies-and-altruistic-kidney-donation\/\">In response<\/a>, Rohrig and Manheim argue that the analogy between SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies and altruistic kidney donation is \u201cseparate from the analysis and justification of the risk[s]\u201d of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies. Acknowledging that no analogy is perfect, they argue that the analogy has been \u201chelpful for public understanding\u201d of the risks of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Justifying the risks of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The analogy has been used to justify the risks of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bmj.com\/content\/371\/bmj.m4258\">In a recent article<\/a> McPartlin, Rohrig, and Morrison state:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cAccording to a principle of \u201crisk parity,\u201d if we allow some people to take certain risks to help save lives then we should allow other people to take similar, voluntary risks when there are comparable benefits. Put concretely: altruistic risks allowed in operating rooms (for example, kidney donation) should be allowed in clinical research facilities, such as in challenge trials.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This is not a descriptive statement about the level of risk posed by kidney donation and SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies. It is a normative statement, about what \u201cshould be allowed.\u201d In this statement, the analogy is used to justify the risks posed by SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Communicating the risks of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The analogy is not helpful for building the public\u2019s understanding of the risks of challenge studies. In addition to risk magnitude, conveying the context in which a risk occurs is critical for effective risk communication. Kidney donation and SARS-CoV-2 challenge study participation are altruistic acts that pose a similar risk of death to volunteers. These similarities give the analogy intuitive appeal. But, as we have argued, morally relevant differences distinguish the contexts in which these risks occur. Understanding these differences is critical because <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1080\/13669870701602956\">analogies can be misleading when the analogs are similar enough to evoke an intuition, but differ in important ways<\/a>. Selectively communicating the similarities of the analogy, while neglecting the differences, fails to properly educate the public and transforms the analogy into a rhetorical device. This undermines the goal of building public understanding.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Justified paternalism<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Advocates for SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies use a series of analogies to bolster a central thesis with which we disagree. They invoke the acceptability of risks voluntarily assumed by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bmj.com\/content\/371\/bmj.m4258\">kidney donors<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jid\/article\/221\/11\/1752\/5814216\">firefighters<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/01\/11\/response-to-nix-and-weijer-close-eneph-sars-cov-2-challenge-studies-and-altruistic-kidney-donation\/\">search and rescue teams<\/a> to refute paternalism and <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/01\/11\/response-to-nix-and-weijer-close-eneph-sars-cov-2-challenge-studies-and-altruistic-kidney-donation\/\">argue that if<\/a> \u201cthe known risks are made clear to volunteers, and the life-saving benefits are probable, the altruistic decision should rest in the hands of the volunteers.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>However, consent and the prospect of saving lives are not sufficient to justify exposing people to any level of risk. Paternalism is justified when an individual\u2019s decision may interfere with professional duties or result in harm to others. Even with informed consent, a <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.lww.com\/transplantjournal\/Fulltext\/2019\/06000\/GFR_Assessment_of_Living_Kidney_Donors_Candidates.12.aspx#:~:text=The%20CTS%20guidelines%20recommend%20a,donors%20of%20age%20%3E65%20years\">patient with suboptimal kidney function<\/a> is not permitted to donate a kidney; <a href=\"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1057\/rm.2015.20\">firefighters<\/a> are not permitted to enter a burning building when the incident commander rules that the risks are too high; and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/abs\/pii\/S1067991X05001847\">search and rescue teams<\/a> are not permitted to enter a terrain when the conditions are too dangerous. In each case, paternalistic regulations are in place to uphold professional duties and limit risks to others.<\/p>\n<p>For similar reasons, volunteers ought not be allowed to participate currently in SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies. In the absence of proven and effective rescue medication, such studies would violate the researchers\u2019 duty to do no harm. Further, reports of adverse events in SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies seem likely to erode the public\u2019s trust, thereby undermining the uptake of covid-19 vaccines.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Authors: <\/strong>Hayden P. Nix<sup>1,2<\/sup> and Charles Weijer<sup>3<\/sup><\/p>\n<p><strong>Affiliations:<\/strong> <sup>1<\/sup>MD Student, Schulich School of Medicine &amp; Dentistry, Western University, Canada; <sup>2<\/sup>MSt Student, University of Oxford, UK. <sup>3<\/sup>Professor Department of Medicine, Epidemiology &amp; Biostatistics, and Philosophy, Western University, Canada.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Competing Interests:<\/strong> HPN has no competing interests to declare. CW receives consulting income from Cardialen, Eli Lilly &amp; Company, and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Social Media:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/haydenpnix\">@HaydenPNix<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/charlesweijer\">@charlesweijer<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<!--TrendMD v2.4.8--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Hayden P. Nix and Charles Weijer In a recent blog post, we sought to answer the narrow question: is altruistic kidney donation sufficiently analogous to participation in a SARS-CoV-2 challenge study to justify the risks of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies? We argued that three morally relevant differences (the risk of adverse effects, the availability of [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p><a class=\"btn btn-secondary understrap-read-more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/\">Read More&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":353,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8070,397],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pandemic","category-research-ethics"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim - Journal of Medical Ethics blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim - Journal of Medical Ethics blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Hayden P. Nix and Charles Weijer In a recent blog post, we sought to answer the narrow question: is altruistic kidney donation sufficiently analogous to participation in a SARS-CoV-2 challenge study to justify the risks of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies? We argued that three morally relevant differences (the risk of adverse effects, the availability of [...]Read More...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Journal of Medical Ethics blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-10T02:00:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Mike King\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Mike King\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Mike King\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/b107957622bc42b2097d15e5e02a112c\"},\"headline\":\"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-10T02:00:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":740,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Pandemic\",\"Research Ethics\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/\",\"name\":\"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim - Journal of Medical Ethics blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-10T02:00:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/10\\\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/\",\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics blog\",\"description\":\"A blog to discuss the ethics of medicine in its many guises and formats.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics blog\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/jme-logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/jme-logo.png\",\"width\":200,\"height\":50,\"caption\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics blog\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/b107957622bc42b2097d15e5e02a112c\",\"name\":\"Mike King\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8caa7ddd85361ccfd46160d9dd41e9ff9aadde6fd8379b80c066d095d69f9f7b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8caa7ddd85361ccfd46160d9dd41e9ff9aadde6fd8379b80c066d095d69f9f7b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8caa7ddd85361ccfd46160d9dd41e9ff9aadde6fd8379b80c066d095d69f9f7b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Mike King\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.otago.ac.nz\\\/bioethics\\\/people\\\/academic\\\/profile\\\/index.html?id=774\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/medical-ethics\\\/author\\\/mking\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim - Journal of Medical Ethics blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim - Journal of Medical Ethics blog","og_description":"By Hayden P. Nix and Charles Weijer In a recent blog post, we sought to answer the narrow question: is altruistic kidney donation sufficiently analogous to participation in a SARS-CoV-2 challenge study to justify the risks of SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies? We argued that three morally relevant differences (the risk of adverse effects, the availability of [...]Read More...","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/","og_site_name":"Journal of Medical Ethics blog","article_published_time":"2021-02-10T02:00:36+00:00","author":"Mike King","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Mike King","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/"},"author":{"name":"Mike King","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#\/schema\/person\/b107957622bc42b2097d15e5e02a112c"},"headline":"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim","datePublished":"2021-02-10T02:00:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/"},"wordCount":740,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Pandemic","Research Ethics"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/","name":"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim - Journal of Medical Ethics blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-02-10T02:00:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2021\/02\/10\/dialyzing-the-discourse-a-response-to-rohrig-and-manheim\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dialyzing the discourse: a response to Rohrig and Manheim"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/","name":"Journal of Medical Ethics blog","description":"A blog to discuss the ethics of medicine in its many guises and formats.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#organization","name":"Journal of Medical Ethics blog","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/files\/2026\/04\/jme-logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/files\/2026\/04\/jme-logo.png","width":200,"height":50,"caption":"Journal of Medical Ethics blog"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/#\/schema\/person\/b107957622bc42b2097d15e5e02a112c","name":"Mike King","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8caa7ddd85361ccfd46160d9dd41e9ff9aadde6fd8379b80c066d095d69f9f7b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8caa7ddd85361ccfd46160d9dd41e9ff9aadde6fd8379b80c066d095d69f9f7b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8caa7ddd85361ccfd46160d9dd41e9ff9aadde6fd8379b80c066d095d69f9f7b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Mike King"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.otago.ac.nz\/bioethics\/people\/academic\/profile\/index.html?id=774"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/author\/mking\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4101","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/353"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4101"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4101\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}