LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 10 of total 112

Search options

  1. Book: The voices and rooms of European bioethics

    Huxtable, Richard

    (Biomedical law and ethics library)

    2015  

    Author's details ed. by Richard Huxtable
    Series title Biomedical law and ethics library
    Keywords Medical care/Law and legislation ; Medical genetics/Law and legislation ; Medical ethics ; Bioethics
    Subject code 174.2094
    Language English
    Size XXII, 209 S. : Ill.
    Publisher Routledge
    Publishing place Abington u.a.
    Publishing country Great Britain
    Document type Book
    Note Includes bibliographical references and index
    HBZ-ID HT018649384
    ISBN 978-0-415-73719-7 ; 9781315814469 ; 0-415-73719-2 ; 1315814463
    Database Catalogue ZB MED Medicine, Health

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Book: Law, ethics and compromises at the limits of life

    Huxtable, Richard

    to treat or not to treat?

    (Biomedical law and ethics library)

    2013  

    Author's details Richard Huxtable
    Series title Biomedical law and ethics library
    Keywords Terminal care--Moral and ethical aspects ; Terminal care--Law and legislation ; Terminal care--Decision making ; Informed consent (Medical law)
    Language English
    Size XX, 207 S.
    Publisher Routledge
    Publishing place London u.a.
    Publishing country Great Britain
    Document type Book
    HBZ-ID HT017413208
    ISBN 978-0-415-49280-5 ; 978-0-415-49279-9 ; 0-415-49279-3 ; 0-415-49280-7
    Database Catalogue ZB MED Medicine, Health

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Book ; Online: ‘You don’t Need Proof When You’ve Got Instinct!’: Gut Feelings and Some Limits to Parental Authority

    Huxtable, Richard / Meulen, ter, Ruud

    2015  

    Abstract: This book reflects on the many contributions made in and to European bioethics to date, in various locations, and from various disciplinary perspectives. In so doing, the book advances understanding of the academic and social status of European bioethics ...

    Abstract This book reflects on the many contributions made in and to European bioethics to date, in various locations, and from various disciplinary perspectives. In so doing, the book advances understanding of the academic and social status of European bioethics as it is being supported and practiced by various disciplines such as philosophy, law, medicine, and the social sciences, applied to a wide range of areas. The European focus offers a valuable counter-balance to an often prominent US understanding of bioethics. The volume is split into four parts. The first contains reflection on bioethics in the past, present and future, and also considers how comparison between countries and disciplines can enrich bioethical discourse. The second looks at bioethics in particular locations and contexts, including: policy, boardrooms and courtrooms; studios and virtual rooms; and society, while the third part explores the translation of theories and concepts of bioethics into the clinical setting. The fourth and final section focuses on academic expressions of bioethics, as it is theorised in various disciplines and also as it is taught, whether in classrooms or at the patient's bedside. The book features unique contributions from a range of experts including: Alastair V Campbell; Ruth Chadwick; Angus Dawson; Raymond G. De Vries; Suzanne Ost; Renzo Pegoraro; Rouven Porz; Paul Schotsmans;Jochen Vollmann; Guy Widdershoven and Hub Zwart
    Keywords Biology (General)
    Size 1 electronic resource (210 p.)
    Publisher Routledge
    Document type Book ; Online
    Note English ; Open Access
    HBZ-ID HT020098697
    ISBN 9780415737197 ; 9781315814469 ; 0415737192 ; 1315814463
    Database ZB MED Catalogue: Medicine, Health, Nutrition, Environment, Agriculture

    More links

    Kategorien

  4. Book: Euthanasia, ethics and the law

    Huxtable, Richard

    from conflict to compromise

    (Biomedical law and ethics library)

    2007  

    Author's details Richard Huxtable
    Series title Biomedical law and ethics library
    Language English
    Size XVIII, 211 S.
    Publisher Routledge-Cavendish
    Publishing place Abingdon u.a.
    Publishing country Great Britain
    Document type Book
    HBZ-ID HT014944231
    ISBN 1-84472-106-X ; 1-84472-105-1 ; 978-1-84472-106-1 ; 978-1-84472-105-4 ; 020394044X ; 9780203940440
    Database Catalogue ZB MED Medicine, Health

    More links

    Kategorien

  5. Article ; Online: COVID-19: where is the national ethical guidance?

    Huxtable, Richard

    BMC medical ethics

    2020  Volume 21, Issue 1, Page(s) 32

    MeSH term(s) Betacoronavirus ; Bioethical Issues ; COVID-19 ; Coronavirus ; Coronavirus Infections ; Decision Making/ethics ; England/epidemiology ; Guidelines as Topic ; Health Resources/ethics ; Health Resources/supply & distribution ; Humans ; Pandemics ; Pneumonia, Viral ; SARS-CoV-2
    Keywords covid19
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-05-01
    Publishing country England
    Document type Editorial
    ZDB-ID 2041552-7
    ISSN 1472-6939 ; 1472-6939
    ISSN (online) 1472-6939
    ISSN 1472-6939
    DOI 10.1186/s12910-020-00478-2
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  6. Article ; Online: Bin it or pin it? Which professional ethical guidance on managing COVID-19 should I follow?

    Huxtable, Richard

    BMC medical ethics

    2020  Volume 21, Issue 1, Page(s) 60

    Abstract: Background: As the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic develops, healthcare professionals are looking for support with, and guidance to inform, the difficult decisions they face. In the (current) absence of an authoritative national steer in England, ... ...

    Abstract Background: As the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic develops, healthcare professionals are looking for support with, and guidance to inform, the difficult decisions they face. In the (current) absence of an authoritative national steer in England, professional bodies and local organisations have been developing and disseminating their own ethical guidance. Questions inevitably arise, some of which are particularly pressing during the pandemic, as events are unfolding quickly and the field is becoming crowded. My central question here is: which professional ethical guidance should the professional follow?
    Main body: Adopting a working definition of "professional ethical guidance", I offer three domains for a healthcare professional to consider, and some associated questions to ask, when determining whether - in relation to any guidance document - they should "bin it or pin it". First, the professional should consider the source of the guidance: is the issuing body authoritative or, if not, at least sufficiently influential that its guidance should be followed? Second, the professional should consider the applicability of the guidance, ascertaining whether the guidance is available and, if so, whether it is pertinent. Pertinence has various dimensions, including whether the guidance applies to this professional, this patient and/or this setting, whether it is up-to-date, and whether the guidance addresses the situation the professional is facing. Third, the professional should consider the methodology and methods by which the guidance was produced. Although the substantive quality of the guidance is important, so too are the methods by which it was produced. Here, the professional should ask whether the guidance is sufficiently inclusive - in terms of who has prepared it and who contributed to its development - and whether it was rigorously developed, and thus utilised appropriate processes, principles and evidence.
    Conclusion: Asking and answering such questions may be challenging, particularly during a pandemic. Furthermore, guidance will not do all the work: professionals will still need to exercise their judgment in deciding what is best in the individual case, whether or not this concerns COVID-19. But such judgments can and should be informed (and constrained) by guidance, and hopefully these preliminary observations will provide some useful pointers for time-pressed professionals.
    MeSH term(s) Betacoronavirus ; COVID-19 ; Codes of Ethics ; Coronavirus Infections ; Ethics, Medical ; Health Personnel/ethics ; Health Services Research ; Humans ; Pandemics/ethics ; Pneumonia, Viral ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; SARS-CoV-2
    Keywords covid19
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-07-15
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
    ZDB-ID 2041552-7
    ISSN 1472-6939 ; 1472-6939
    ISSN (online) 1472-6939
    ISSN 1472-6939
    DOI 10.1186/s12910-020-00491-5
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  7. Article ; Online: Dying too soon or living too long? Withdrawing treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness after Re Y.

    Huxtable, Richard

    BMC medical ethics

    2019  Volume 20, Issue 1, Page(s) 91

    Abstract: Background: In the ruling in Y [2018], the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no general requirement for the courts in England and Wales to authorise the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients with prolonged ... ...

    Abstract Background: In the ruling in Y [2018], the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no general requirement for the courts in England and Wales to authorise the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness. The perceived requirement, which originated in a court ruling in 1993, encompassed those in the vegetative state and those in the minimally conscious state. The ruling in Y confirms that the court may still be approached to decide difficult or contested cases, but there is otherwise no routine requirement that the judges be approached.
    Main body: There is much to welcome in this ruling, particularly as it means that these decisions for these patients are no longer (unusually) singled out for a judicial decision, with all the financial and emotional costs that court proceedings can entail. However, there is also a risk that the ruling might have unwelcome consequences. First, there is the possibility that patients might die too soon, particularly if doctors should now adopt the courts' previous reasoning, which has suggested that patients in the vegetative state lack interests, so treatment may - perhaps must - be withdrawn. Secondly, there is the converse possibility that patients might live too long, since empirical research suggests that - whether intentionally or not - patients' families, clinicians, and the health system appear to promote treatment-by-default.
    Conclusion: Rather than adopt general positions, which may be contestable and potentially risky, this article argues, on a pluralistic basis, that the individual patient should be the focus of any decision made in his or her 'best interests'. The existing legal framework in England and Wales, which is provided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, already points in this direction, although more efforts may be needed to ensure that those involved in making these decisions are suitably educated and supported. Fortunately, new guidance from the British Medical Association could help clinicians and families to make decisions in the future, which are appropriate for the incapacitated individual patient in question.
    MeSH term(s) Consciousness ; Dissent and Disputes/legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Life Support Care ; Persistent Vegetative State ; United Kingdom ; Withholding Treatment/ethics ; Withholding Treatment/legislation & jurisprudence
    Language English
    Publishing date 2019-12-30
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article ; Legal Case ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
    ZDB-ID 2041552-7
    ISSN 1472-6939 ; 1472-6939
    ISSN (online) 1472-6939
    ISSN 1472-6939
    DOI 10.1186/s12910-019-0424-4
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  8. Article ; Online: COVID-19

    Richard Huxtable

    BMC Medical Ethics, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-

    where is the national ethical guidance?

    2020  Volume 3

    Keywords COVID-19 ; Coronavirus ; Ethical guidance ; Professional guidance ; Medical philosophy. Medical ethics ; R723-726 ; covid19
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-05-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher BMC
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

  9. Article ; Online: Bin it or pin it? Which professional ethical guidance on managing COVID-19 should I follow?

    Richard Huxtable

    BMC Medical Ethics, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-

    2020  Volume 10

    Abstract: Abstract Background As the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic develops, healthcare professionals are looking for support with, and guidance to inform, the difficult decisions they face. In the (current) absence of an authoritative national steer in England, ...

    Abstract Abstract Background As the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic develops, healthcare professionals are looking for support with, and guidance to inform, the difficult decisions they face. In the (current) absence of an authoritative national steer in England, professional bodies and local organisations have been developing and disseminating their own ethical guidance. Questions inevitably arise, some of which are particularly pressing during the pandemic, as events are unfolding quickly and the field is becoming crowded. My central question here is: which professional ethical guidance should the professional follow? Main body Adopting a working definition of “professional ethical guidance”, I offer three domains for a healthcare professional to consider, and some associated questions to ask, when determining whether – in relation to any guidance document – they should “bin it or pin it”. First, the professional should consider the source of the guidance: is the issuing body authoritative or, if not, at least sufficiently influential that its guidance should be followed? Second, the professional should consider the applicability of the guidance, ascertaining whether the guidance is available and, if so, whether it is pertinent. Pertinence has various dimensions, including whether the guidance applies to this professional, this patient and/or this setting, whether it is up-to-date, and whether the guidance addresses the situation the professional is facing. Third, the professional should consider the methodology and methods by which the guidance was produced. Although the substantive quality of the guidance is important, so too are the methods by which it was produced. Here, the professional should ask whether the guidance is sufficiently inclusive – in terms of who has prepared it and who contributed to its development – and whether it was rigorously developed, and thus utilised appropriate processes, principles and evidence. Conclusion Asking and answering such questions may be challenging, particularly during a pandemic. Furthermore, guidance will not do all the work: professionals will still need to exercise their judgment in deciding what is best in the individual case, whether or not this concerns COVID-19. But such judgments can and should be informed (and constrained) by guidance, and hopefully these preliminary observations will provide some useful pointers for time-pressed professionals.
    Keywords COVID-19 ; Coronavirus ; Ethical guidance ; Professional guidance ; Medical philosophy. Medical ethics ; R723-726 ; covid19
    Subject code 170
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-07-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher BMC
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

To top