Faculty Bibliography

How did bioethics manage to grow, flourish and ultimately do so well from a very unpromising birth in the 1970s? Many explanations have been advanced. Some ascribe the field's growth to a puzzling, voluntary abnegation of moral authority by medicine to non-physicians. Some think bioethics survived by selling out to the biomedical establishment-public and private. This transaction involved bestowing moral approbation on all manner of biomedicine's doings for a seat at a well-stocked funding table. Some see a sort of clever intellectual bamboozlement at work wherein bioethicists pitched a moral elixir of objective expertise that the morally needy but unsophisticated in medicine and the biological sciences were eager to swallow. While each of these reasons has its defenders, I think the main reason that bioethics did well was that it did good. By using the media to move into the public arena, the field engaged the public imagination, provoked dialogue and debate, and contributed to policy changes that benefitted patients and healthcare providers.

Preparticipation screening for unsuspected cardiovascular disease is a controversial topic in the medical and lay communities. Much attention has been directed towards young competitive athletes, particularly the proposed strategy of incorporating 12-lead electrocardiograms into the screening process, even on a national or worldwide basis. However, sudden deaths of young athletes owing to genetic or congenital heart diseases have a low incidence in the general population. Furthermore, young people not engaged in competitive sports can harbour the same conditions that cause sudden death in athletes, which has gone largely unrecognized. Notably, sudden deaths from these diseases are numerically far more common in the much larger population of nonathletes. In this Perspectives article, we propose that an ethical dilemma has emerged, raising the important public-health issue of whether young individuals should be arbitrarily excluded from potentially life-saving clinical screening evaluations because they do not engage in competitive sports programmes.

The media, his colleagues and public health folks seem willing to give the leader of the House a pass on his tanning obsession. Because tanning, especially indoor tanning, is a major cause of cancer and death in America and around the world

Doctors use their judgment and experience all the time to recommend things to patients that regulatory bodies have not approved or that their peers might think inadvisable: "Yes, there are risks involved, but I don't wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle, and I understand if you don't want to, either." Especially when they speak on TV. Because lives hang in the balance, medical speech is held to a higher standard

Especially when they speak on TV. Because lives hang in the balance, medical speech is held to a higher standard. Vaccines do not cause autism; measles is dangerous and contagious; inoculating against the disease is neither pointless nor riskier than abstention

[...]there is the lunatic osteopath Jack Wolfson, who told The Arizona Republic that diseases like measles are nature's way of building up the immune system: "We should be getting measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox; these are the rights of our children to get it."