tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49240694771033656642024-03-13T19:53:49.298+00:00Philosophy and BioethicsThis is the Blog of the International Network for Philosophy and Bioethics and aims to provide a focus point to discuss both philosophy, bioethics and their inter-relation.James Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00845720480440223656noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-55638004745846999592010-03-19T15:47:00.000+00:002010-03-19T15:48:35.570+00:00Ethical Issues in Infectious Disease Control Workshop 22nd of April – Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University.<p style="font-family: arial;"><!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } A.western:link { so-language: zxx } A.ctl:link { so-language: zxx } --><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">The Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele </span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">like to announce a Wellcome Trust funded workshop to be held at Keele University on the 22</span><sup><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">nd</span></sup><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> of April focusing on the ethical issues raised by infectious disease control.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"><img src="http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" mce_src="http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" alt="" class="mceWPmore mceItemNoResize" title="More..." /><br /></span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Abstract:</b></span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">The outbreak of a new infectious disease, or a new variant of an old one, creates a new public health problem, as we have seen with both H1N1 (“Swine Flu”) and MRSA. Consideration must be given to what steps can be taken to stop, or at least slow, the spread of the disease. In addition to this scientific question, a number of ethical questions need to be addressed: What steps, if any, </span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"><i>should</i></span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> be taken in an attempt to stop or slow the spread of the disease? What are the factors that need to be taken into account if we are to answer this question? What is the relevant balance between prevention and treatment? Where resources are scarce how ought they to be distributed? In an emergency situation, can traditional ethical concerns be ignored or overridden? Given the speed with which infectious diseases can spread there is often considerable time pressure, as we have seen in the case of H1N1, to quickly identify and implement an appropriate policy. This pressure can mean that there is little opportunity to deal adequately with these areas of ethical concern at the time.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Whilst uncertainties about how widely and quickly a new disease will spread mean that some of these questions are particularly difficult in the case of both new diseases and new variants of old ones, the questions themselves are not new. Very similar ethical issues are also raised in the context of treating infectious diseases that are better understood. In many cases, they have their roots in issues that are common to a wide range of such diseases. While these have been investigated and debated in some detail in relation to particular diseases, such as tuberculosis, the common themes that unite them (and the factors that affect how they play out) have not been much investigated by medical ethicists. As a result the lessons learnt in assessing the ethical acceptability of policies for dealing with one disease are not always transferred effectively to similar policies when these are suggested for dealing with other diseases. When a new disease, or new variant of an old one, appears this means that there is no readily available framework for considering the ethical questions raised by policies to deal with it, creating in turn a delay in responding to those questions. By bringing together philosophers, public health practitioners, ethicists and lawyers, this workshop will both further understanding of the ethical issues raised by particular policies in dealing with infectious disease, and provide the beginnings of such a framework for thinking about new conditions as they arise.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Speakers</b></span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">:</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Professor Soren Holm, School of Law, Manchester University </span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Dr Heather Draper, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, University of Birmingham</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Dr Sarah Damery, Department of Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Dr Alena Buyx, Assistant Director. Nuffield Council for Bioethics</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Dr Michael Millar, Consultant Microbiologist, Department of Pathology & Microbiology, Barts & The London NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital </span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Dr Stephen John, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University </span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Dr Angus Dawson, Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University, Editor of </span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Public Health Ethics</i></span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Dr John Coggon, School of Law, Manchester University.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Dr Tom Walker, Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Details:</b></span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Participation in the workshop is free of charge thanks to the funding of the Wellcome Trust – however places are limited so please apply promptly. If you would like to reserve a place please email Dr Tom Walker at </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128);" mce_style="color: #000080;"><u><a href="mailto:t.walker@peak.keele.ac.uk" mce_href="mailto:t.walker@peak.keele.ac.uk"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">t.walker@peak.keele.ac.uk</span></a></u></span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">The workshop will run from 10.00 to 17.30 on Thursday 22</span><sup><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">nd</span></sup><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> April 2010, and will be held in The Moser Centre at Keele University.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Information about getting to Keele can be found at: </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128);" mce_style="color: #000080;"><u><a href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/aboutus/howtofindus/" mce_href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/aboutus/howtofindus/"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.keele.ac.uk/aboutus/howtofindus/</span></a></u></span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"><b><br />The Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele:</b></span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Keele’s Centre for Professional Ethics (also known as PEAK – Professional Ethics at Keele) is amongst the largest and most successful providers of </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128);" mce_style="color: #000080;"><u><a href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/courses/index.html" mce_href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/courses/index.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">postgraduate ethics courses</span></a></u></span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> in Europe, with a portfolio of five distinctive MA / PgDip programmes as well as the UK’s first </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128);" mce_style="color: #000080;"><u><a href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/courses/PD/index.html" mce_href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/courses/PD/index.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Professional Doctorate in Medical Ethics</span></a></u></span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">In addition to this workshop we are holding a training day on ethical issues in infectious disease control for professionals working in the field of public health and other relevant areas on the 10</span><sup><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> of June – for further details see here: </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128);" mce_style="color: #000080;"><u><a href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/news/KT-events/10.06.10.bookingform.pdf" mce_href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/news/KT-events/10.06.10.bookingform.pdf"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/news/KT-events/10.06.10.bookingform.pdf</span></a></u></span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">Further details of the Centre can be found here: </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128);" mce_style="color: #000080;"><u><a href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/" mce_href="http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/"><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/pk/</span></a></u></span><span style="font-size: x-small;" mce_style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></p>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-72707063989174982872009-08-20T11:24:00.002+01:002009-08-20T11:34:57.228+01:00DropboxSometime ago I recommended <a href="http://philosophyandbioethics.blogspot.com/2007/03/foldershare.html">Foldershare</a> as part of this series. The reason I recommended this was that it made keeping the document folders on two computers in sync over the net pretty simple, which made my life as an academic much easier.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />Since that time Microsoft have effectively withdrawn that product and replaced it with one which at least for me seems to crash on a regular basis. And while Foldershare was handy it lacks two important features.<br /><br />The first is that foldershare required both computers to be on to make any transfers, so it only worked if you had your computer at home and at work on at the same time, not entirely environmentally friendly!<br /><br />The second is that foldershare copied the whole changed file rather than just the changes, so with large files this could take a long time.<br /><br />I've now switched to a program called <a href="https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTE3NDY3OQ">Dropbox</a> <br /><br />Dropbox stores a copy of your documents in the "cloud" so it doesn't require both computers to be on, and it updates file incrementally rather than in entire file blocks.<br /><br />To install the program go here: <a href="https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTE3NDY3OQ">Dropbox</a> <br /><br />And download it. Once you have installed it, make a new folder in your Dropbox and copy any files you want to keep in sync (you get 2 GB's free which should be enough for any ones documents) into that folder. Then install Dropbox onto your other computers and voila, you have copies of the latest version of your documents wherever you go. <br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-25506677855431464332009-02-12T11:06:00.001+00:002009-02-12T11:08:07.632+00:00Call for Abstracts - Brain Matters: New Directions in NeuroethicsBRAIN Matters: New Directions in Neuroethics<br /><br />September 24 - 26, 2009<br />Lord Nelson Hotel<br />Halifax • Nova Scotia • Canada<br /><br />This conference will bring together new and established researchers from around the world with a complementary range of expertise in ethics, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, medicine, history, social studies, law and policy, to critically examine a wide range of issues in neuroethics.The Conference Abstract Committee invites proposals for oral presentations, panel presentations, and posters that reflect the diversity of philosophies, disciplines, and methodologies relating to new directions in the field of neuroethics.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />The Brain Matters conference will bring together new and established researchers from around the world with a complementary range of expertise in ethics, philosophy of mind, medicine, science, history, social studies, law and policy, to critically examine a wide range of issues in neuroethics. The conference presents a valuable opportunity to strengthen current research relationships between health and ethics researchers, and to foster new collaborations.<br /><br />Trainee Award Abstract Competition - Up to 15 monetary awards will be given to trainees whose abstracts for an Oral Presentation or Poster Presentation have been accepted by the Abstracts Committee. Awards will be made on the basis of merit.<br /><br />The deadline is March 1, 2009 and more details including the submission forms are available on the conference website: http://www.noveltechethics.ca/site_brainmatters.php<br /><br />Selected conference papers will be published in The American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroethics and the Journal of Ethics and Mental Health.<br /><br />Please visit the conference website for more information: http://www.noveltechethics.ca/site_brainmatters.php</span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-13938573122326884262008-09-14T16:55:00.001+00:002008-09-14T17:07:16.503+00:00New Journal of Medical Ethics BlogThe Journal of Medical Ethics has decided to join the blogosphere with a new Journal of Medical Ethics Blog which can be found here: <a href="http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/">Journal of Medical Ethics Blog</a><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br /><blockquote>Medical ethics is a fast moving field where there is always some new scientific or political development to analyse and discuss.<br /><br />It is difficult for a journal like the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) to keep up with these day to day developments in its print version, but we hope to do it in this blog.<br /><br />In the future we will bring you a range of posts:<br /><br />1. Our own musings on all things ethical<br />2. Quick reviews of the most important new books as they appear and some old books before they disappear<br />3. Reports from interesting and not so interesting conferences<br />4. News about what the JME is doing and about interesting ethics papers in the JME’s sister journals</blockquote><br /><br />The contributors will be myself, Iain Brassington from Manchester University and Soren Holm from Cardiff University. Hope to see you over there at some point, as well as over here.<br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-43185819680169399962008-07-18T12:00:00.002+01:002008-07-18T12:07:10.377+01:00A difficulty for proponents of genetic enhancementIs that traits are multi-factorial and genes may have both positive and negative effects depending on the context and environment.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />A good example of this is illustrated in this BBC article: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7509210.stm">Malaria gene 'increases HIV risk'</a> <br /><br /><blockquote>People of African descent have a variation of the "DARC" gene which may interfere with their ability to fight HIV in its early stages.<br /><br />The Cell Host and Microbe study says the gene accounts for millions of extra HIV cases in sub-Saharan Africa. <br /><br />The gene influences the levels of chemicals called chemokines, which play a role in the body's defences against viruses, and a variation is held by approximately 90% of Africans.<br /><br />The origins of the variation are unclear, but it is thought to have evolved in response to widespread malaria outbreaks by offering protection against that disease. </blockquote><br /><br />In other words a trait that is protective in some circumstances is now, in a changed environment, very harmful. The implications of this are twofold, namely that the effects of "enhancement" are potentially harmful to other traits, and more importantly are difficult to predict.<br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-49138972724346627182008-07-11T13:25:00.004+01:002008-07-11T13:30:42.943+01:00Female as a human enhancement?A rather nice argument by Robert Sparrow (A Melbourne based bioethicist) suggests that the transhumanist arguments that human enhancement is a moral imperative imply that we ought to use reproductive technology to ensure that our children are female rather than male. <br /><span id="fullpost"><br />The core of the argument is that women have a significant number of advantages over men in terms of longevity etc and given that we could do without men (using IVF etc) then the pro-enhancement argument implies we ought to do so. Full article here:<br /><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/men-on-a-slippery-slide-in-future-hermaphrodite-world-20080710-3d73.html">Men on a slippery slide in future hermaphrodite world</a><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-68387819296737062972008-05-15T12:30:00.002+00:002008-05-15T12:36:06.599+00:00PETA paying for animal testing?This seems a very unusual move from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) they are offering to pay <a href="http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=11306">$1000000 to the first group to develop commercially viable vat-grown meat</a>.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />While it is understandable why PETA would champion this (since vat meat would remove in principle many (weak) justifications for meat eating.<br />However it seems in contrast with many of their previous stands, the most obvious issue being that this will almost certainly involve animal testing... Especially since they want it to taste the same as existing meat...<br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-38208878357869187072008-01-31T10:15:00.000+00:002008-01-31T10:27:08.406+00:00Conflicts of interest in big business researchTwo interesting news articles on different sorts of conflicts of interest in research can be found here in the New York Times:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/business/30cnd-censure.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">Doctor Accused of Leak to Drug Maker</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/business/30spine.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">Financial Ties Are Cited as Issue in Spine Study</a><br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />The first piece describes how, Steven M. Haffner of the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, leaked an article critical of Avandia to GlaxoSmithKline after agreeing peer-review it for the New England Journal of Medicine<br /><br /><blockquote>A key member of the Senate said Wednesday that a prominent diabetes expert leaked an unpublished and confidential medical journal article to GlaxoSmithKline last year, tipping the company to the imminent publication of safety questions involving the company’s diabetes drug Avandia.</blockquote><br /><br />The second piece describes a potential conflict of interest in the study of an artificial spinal disc.<br /><br /><blockquote>“As a surgeon, it is gratifying to see patients recover function more quickly than after fusion and return to their normal activities more easily,” Dr. Jack E. Zigler, a well-known spine specialist and one of the study’s lead researchers, said in a 2006 news release announcing the latest results of the Prodisc clinical trial.<br /><br />As it turns out, Dr. Zigler had more than a medical interest in the outcome. So did doctors at about half of the 17 research centers involved in the study. They stood to profit financially if the Prodisc succeeded, according to confidential information from a patient’s lawsuit settled last year.</blockquote> <br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-14676371700375418172008-01-14T18:34:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:44:37.318+00:00Facebook and Research Ethics<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos-681.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v43/177/6906564681/app_3_6906564681_9459.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://photos-681.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v43/177/6906564681/app_3_6906564681_9459.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />This is a juxtaposition of two things I noticed recently associating social networks and various issues in research ethics.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />The first is this thoughtful piece from the PredictER blog: <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2008/01/biomedical-research-ethics-20-myspace.html">Biomedical Research Ethics 2.0: MySpace and Pediatrics</a> which explores some of the issues that might emerge as more and more medical information is shared by users on these sites.<br /><br />The second where the delightful picture above was drawn from is an application on Facebook called "I'm a Guinea Pig!" and is described as:<br /><blockquote><br />Do you wish to help furthering medicine, while benefiting from state-of-the-art medical care and possibly from a remuneration ? Become a "guinea pig" for medical research!<br /><br />The spectrum of experiments is very large and includes psychological tests, medical imaging studies, medical equipement testing, genetic tests, drug trials, and evaluation of the safety and efficacy of cosmetics.<br /><br />Feel free to add Volterys's application and fill your profile in our database. You'll be able to browse offers from research labs. Your contacting details will only be communicated to a researcher upon your approval. At any time will you be able to decline an offer, withdraw your application for a research or unsubscribe from Volterys.</blockquote><br />You can see the app for yourself here: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=6906564681">Guinea Pig</a> though only if you have a facebook account of your own.<br /><br />Presently only usable in the EU, while I admire the company's inventiveness obviously it has to be questioned whether this is the best place to be recruited for medical research...<br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-89497965389956980672008-01-08T20:02:00.000+00:002008-01-08T20:04:23.012+00:00CFP: 9th World Congress of BioethicsThe 9th World Congress of Bioethics organized by the International Association of Bioethics will be held in Rijeka, Croatia September 5-8, 2008 with satellite conferences scheduled on September 3-4, 2008. <br /><span id="fullpost"><br />Abstracts are due January 31, 2008.<br /><br />Further information about the Congress, the abstract submission process, and registration information is available at the <a href="http://www.bioethics2008rijeka.info/ ">Congress website</a> <br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-64404121381932839112007-11-07T08:39:00.000+00:002007-11-07T08:49:03.870+00:003 New JournalsThat's right 3 new journals focusing on different areas of bioethics<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />The first is <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/phe/">Public Health Ethics</a></span> edited by Angus Dawson & Marcel Verweij<br /><br /><blockquote>Public Health Ethics is the first peer-reviewed international journal to focus on a systematic analysis of the moral problems in public health and preventive medicine. It contains original articles, reviews, and case studies about the nature of public health and related concepts (e.g. population, public, community, prevention); discussions of values in public health; and ethical issues in relation to all aspects of public health policy and practice. This includes normative issues in epidemiological research, health promotion, infectious diseases control, screening, population genetics, resource allocation, health care system reform, vaccinations, environmental and lifestyle factors relevant to health, equity, justice and global health. PHE combines theoretical and practical work from different fields, notably philosophy, law, and politics, but also epidemiology and the medical sciences. Contributors are particularly encouraged to discuss the practical impact of their work on public health policies. PHE is therefore an important resource for scholars and students in bioethics and public health, but also for professionals and policy makers.</blockquote><br /><br />The second is <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.springer.com/east/home/generic/search/results?SGWID=5-40109-70-173736907-0">Neuroethics</a></span> edited by Neil Levy<br /><blockquote>Neuroethics will provide a forum for interdisciplinary studies in neuroethics and related issues in the sciences of the mind. In particular the journal will focus on the ethical issues posed by the new technologies developed via neuroscience (such as psycho-pharmaceuticals and other ways of intervening in the mind), the practice of neuroscience itself (such as the problems posed by incidental findings in imaging work on research subjects), the problems of legal regulation of neuroscientific technologies, and the ways in which the sciences of the mind illuminate traditional moral and philosophical problems, such as the nature of free will and moral responsibility, the problem of self-deception, weakness of the will and the nature of personhood.</blockquote><br /><br />And finally <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.bepress.com/selt/">Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology</a></span> edited by Anthony Mark Cutter and Bert Gordijn<br /><br /><blockquote>Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the ethical and legal issues that arise from emerging technologies. At the intersection of theory and practice the journal combines conceptual analysis and normative deliberations in order to shape academic debates and policy decisions.<br /><br />Technological advances provide opportunities and challenges that require a policy response. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology seeks high quality work that explores the synergy between law and ethics and provides a robust response to these opportunities and challenges. More specifically, the journal focuses on technologies that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, society, and/or humanity.</blockquote><br /><br />As always you can get to the home page of each journal from the sidebar, and once they publish an rss feed they will be added to the Motherlode.<br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-90885504195499026232007-11-05T07:02:00.000+00:002007-11-05T08:33:42.149+00:00Philosophers' Carnival #56: Guy Fawkes<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Ry7KiwHOEXI/AAAAAAAAAEI/ib0tIqulfkU/s1600-h/P1060426.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Ry7KiwHOEXI/AAAAAAAAAEI/ib0tIqulfkU/s320/P1060426.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5129259724001120626" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Remember remember the 5th of November... Welcome to the Guy Fawkes themed Philosophers Carnival, since there is nothing more philosophical than a tradition devoted to the remembrance of treason and treachery.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br />First up to get us started with a bang on the ethical front we have a submission from Thad Guy in cartoon format which aims illuminate the notion that:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thadguy.com/comic/utilitarianism/343/">"Utilitarianism, n. - An ethical philosophy where one's lack of complete knowledge makes it impossible to ever know if one's actions are moral."<br /></a><br /><br />On a similar but different note, Enigman explodes a Tom Thumb at Enigmania by asking <a href="http://enigmanically.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-this-irrational.html">Is this Irrational?</a><br /><br />Over at Ethics-Etc Saul Smilskey lets off number 4 in a series of skyrockets on moral paradoxes with <a href="http://ethics-etc.com/2007/10/28/questions-about-moral-paradoxes-4/">Some Questions About Moral Paradoxes 4</a><br /><br />At Philosophy Etc Richard aims to light a fire under experimental philosophy with <a href="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/10/experimental-philosophy.html">Experimental Philosophy</a> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://profile.ak.facebook.com/object2/712/97/n3040510972_7850.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://profile.ak.facebook.com/object2/712/97/n3040510972_7850.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a> I hope the X-Phil chaps don't mind me borrowing the picture, but it seemed apt ;)<br /><br />To drift into continental philosophy for a moment two salvos are let off. Firstly by Jake Bouma who discusses<a href="http://www.jakebouma.com/2007/10/01/postmodern-suspicion-and-matt-nathansons-heartbreak-world/">Postmodern suspicion and Matt Nathanson’s “Heartbreak World”</a> apparently post-modernists believe that all the fireworks are fizzlers. This is followed up by Brian Norwood at Movement of Existence who explodes dualistic accounts of truth in architecture in this post: <a href="http://movementofexistence.blogspot.com/2007/10/language-and-architectural-truth.html">Language and Architectural Truth</a><br /><br />Talking about language we have two entries running around and writing words in the air with sparklers, discussing an issue central to both philosophy of language and modern culture, namely does J K Rowlings assertion mean that Dumbledore is gay? First Scott lets loose at Show-Me the Argument with: <a href="http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=444">Does an author’s declaration a character’s sexuality make?</a><br /><br />Then Jon launches back (and gets bonus points for managing to get Hans Solo involved as well) with: <a href="http://re-ap.blogspot.com/2007/10/harry-potter-and-ontology-of-fiction-oh.html">Harry Potter and the Ontology of Fiction (Oh, and Han Solo's Here Too)</a><br /><br />Moving back to Rationality for a moment Errol Lord lets off a Cracker in the Excluded Middle <a href="http://theexcludedmiddle.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/maximal-rationality-redux/">Maximal Rationality Redux</a><br /><br />Tanasije Gjorgoski gets down and dirty planting the skyrockets in the soil at a Brood Comb with this post: <a href="http://broodsphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/yet-another-quick-and-dirty-proof-the-world-is-understandable/">Yet Another Quick and Dirty Proof - The World is Understandable</a><br /><br />Avery Archer at the Web of Belief lights things up with a Roman Candle also known as: <a href="http://thewebofbelief.blogspot.com/2007/11/burge-on-perceptual-systems-and.html">Burge on Perceptual Systems and Veridicality (Part 2)</a><br /><br />Andrew Moon sets off a Horsetail in this scintillating display of colour at Show-Me the Argument: <a href="http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=443">Truthmaker is a Goner?</a><br /><br />Finally to wind things up (cue 1812) a mortar is set off, quite intentionally at Intentional Objects, raining down: <a href="http://philosophicatheologica.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/the-inconceivability-of-the-non-identity-of-indiscernibles/">The Inconceivability of the Non-Identity of Indiscernibles</a><br />On everyone in the crowd. <br /><br />Well that's all from this edition of the Philosophers Carnival, remember kids, don't let philosophy go off in your hand, and make sure you only philosophize under adult supervision...<br /><br />Thanks to those who participated, apologies for any misspellings or leaving anyone out, hope no-one got their fingers burnt.<br /><br />To submit an entry for the next (somewhat less pyrotechnic) edition of the Philosophers' Carnival go here: <a href="http://philosophycarnival.blogspot.com/">Philosopher's Carnival</a><br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-44713520192349297542007-10-27T07:49:00.001+00:002007-10-27T18:24:26.826+00:00Call for Submissions: The next Philosophers' Carnival will be here!The next round (I believe round 56) of the philosophy carnival will be found here on the <span style="font-weight:bold;">5th of November</span>. The broad theme will be... Philosophy and Bioethics, very broadly construed.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />So if you have or know a philosophy blog which has a post on this topic (it need not be a brand new post) then please submit it here: <a href="http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_28.html">submission</a>. If you would like to know more about the Philosophers' Carnival you can read about it here: <a href="http://philosophycarnival.blogspot.com/">Philosophers'Carnival</a>.<br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-58297749856676773982007-10-09T20:38:00.003+00:002007-10-27T08:00:42.576+00:00Don Marquis on Abortion: the Contraception Problem<span class="gmail_quote"><span class="q"><br /><br /></span></span><div><span class="q" id="q_115867d2060bee57_4">Don Marquis has famously argued that abortion is wrong because it deprives the foetus of a "future-like-ours". In this post I will not examine his basic argument; but look at an objection which is widely seen as showing that it is unsound.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br />The contraception objection could be said to form the locus of endeavours to demonstrate that Marquis' future-like-ours argument is unsound. I will now, having extensively presented and interpreted the argument as Marquis has presented it in his original paper, aim to subject this objection to a thoroughgoing critical analysis. My objective in this will be to establish a) that the objection fails to undermine Marquis' argument, b) that the reasons for its' failure illuminate pivotal structural features of the argument, and c) what implications the latter have for the ultimate strength of Marquis' claim that the future-like-ours argument resolves the dispute between those who do and do not believe that abortion is generally wrong in favour of the anti-abortionist.<br /><br />Marquis insists that nothing is harmed by contraception. Surely he is right[1]. The basis of the contraception objection, however, is that by the reasoning of his antiabortion argument, contraception must be impermissible since it prevents the actualization of valuable futures-like-ours. At least on a superficial level, Marquis refutation of the objection looks very persuasive. There are no grounds whatsoever for isolating any sperm, ovum or sperm-ovum combination, as the entity possessing a recognizable valuable-future that is prevented from being realized. If consistency would compel Marquis to argue for the immorality of contraception, something would have to be harmed, since a very pivotal premise for him is that to lose a valuable-future-like-ours constitutes a very grave harm.<br /><br />Many objectors to Marquis' argument, nonetheless, have pressed the contraception objection, maintaining that Marquis' response to it is ambiguous, nebulous, and difficult to interpret. Thus its' character has been cast in a variety of conflicting lights. But I will focus closely on Alastair Norcross's contraception objection[2], since I think it is highly relevant to my purposes.<br /><br />Norcross employs a thought-experiment which takes the following form: London is struck by a tragic simultaneous occurrence of freak accidents involving power plants. Almost everyone within twenty miles of Whitehall at the time perish. The Prime Minister is advised that there are a handful of survivors. On one scenario she orders the army to round all of them up and kill them, so that all within twenty miles of Whitehall at the time of the tragedy will not live to tell of their experiences. On an alternative idea, the Prime Minister orders the detonation of a hydrogen bomb in London. This will mean that many more fatalities ensue, and one will have no means of distinguishing between power plant-explosion survivors and those who were out of harm's way at the time of the earlier accidents. It is therefore a fact that it is morally irrelevant that one could not in the latter scenario identify which of the millions of London dead were killed by the nuclear bomb .<br /><br />Norcross seriously thinks there is a legitimate analogy between identifying the cause of death in his London scenario and identifying a subject of harm-by-contraception in Marquis' analysis. If one is open to the possibility that Marquis' argument might indeed entail the prima facie moral equivalence of contraception, abortion and homicide, the fact that a subject of harm-by-contraception cannot be located is morally irrelevant, just as it is superfluous to ascertaining whether a death in the London scenario was immoral whether the dead victim met her demise through a power-plant explosion or the detonation of the H-bomb.[3]<br /><br />What, I ask, can be said about Norcross's rejoinder? To construe Marquis as arguing that since we do not have epistemic access to facts surrounding harm-by-contraception, we must dismiss prospects for such a harm occurring, could only be an instance of exegetical scandal. Norcross himself concedes that there is a possibility that the nature of Marquis' counterargument to the objection would be " not simply..epistemic". (I think any careful reading of Marquis will enable one to see that this is much more than possible).<br /><br />How then does Norcross sidestep this possible interpretation? By evaluating what he sees as the other candidate reading of Marquis' dismissal of the contraception-objection. Norcross believes that Marquis might instead mean that there is no causal mechanism necessitating that any particular "sperm, if any, would have fertilized the ovum."[4] This is because "it may be that the behavior of sperm is not strictly deterministic."[5]<br /><br />Again, Norcross constructs an elaborate thought-experiment to dismiss this line of argument that he (wrongly) thinks may be attributable to Marquis. I will now briefly explicate this thought-experiment in the context of Norcross's wider propounding of the contraception-objection. I will then show why Norcross's approach to Marquis is myopic and tendentious, and what the shortcomings of Norcross's discussion show of the fundamental underpinnings of Marquis' thesis.<br /><br />Norcross imagines another case involving psychopathic heads of government. In this thought-experiment, Smith and Jones are both prisoners of conscience in an evil dictatorship. Shrub, the evil dictator, is impelled, by the prospect of his regime being the subject of adverse publicity in the media via Amnesty International, to release one of the pair in order to generate a favourable PR opportunity. Since he cannot decide which to spare, he devises a system whereby Smith and Jones are imprisoned in individual cells, both fitted with ventilation for the contents of a "canister of poisonous gas". A computer will at noon randomly select one air vent to be closed one second prior to release of the gas at noon. The anti-liberal Vice-President, however, is enraged by this and unplugs the computer before noon so that both die before the gas is released.<br /><br />Again, Norcross is convinced that the fact that the Vice-President's action in this case is heinous poses significant obstacles for Marquis' argument. For even if one million prisoners were bound to die anyhow, his actions would have led to the demise of one more. Marquis, however, simply denies that any future-of-value is obliterated or obstructed from actualization by contraception. What becomes of sperm or ova is of no concern from the point of view of his ethic of killing. But for Marquis, it is chicanery to speak of a sperm-ovum-combination, too, as a discrete object, or in any case some kind of object. And this is where many contraception-objectors, like Norcross, Earl Conee[6], Charles Daniels[7], Keith Korcz[8], and others, beg to differ. Korcz puts forth an argument which states that, were we endowed with the technology to isolate which particular sperm would fertilise an ovum, we could speak of a particular sperm-ovum combination after all. So, for him, there is a "modal ambiguity" in conflating possibility in logical and technological senses.<br /><br />Likewise, Norcross states that "…there is only one future lost as a result of contraception. It is the same future for both the sperm and the ovum." Thus we can say that the "thing" deprived of its valuable future is the "mereological sum" of the sperm and the ovum. This holds quite irrespectively of whether we have the ability to identify the relevant sperm, and to whether which sperm will combine with the ovum is determined by any set of causes.<br /><br />BEFORE I WAS CONCEIVED, I WASN'T<br /><br />In his response to Korcz, Marquis observed that before "…conception, there is no individual that is the same individual that.would have had the valuable life." [9]My conviction is that this claim is warranted and devastating to the claims of these objectors. I will now therefore proceed to examine this point more closely.<br /><br />In non-philosophical, quotidian conversation, we often speak of a foetus as "the baby" (an expectant mother may often remark "I don't want to harm the baby" and so on).We also speak of the interests of people who may be conceived at some later point in time (one could fear for the planned or potential offspring of a couple one regards as a pair of lunatics). But we do not regard the interests of fetuses and the unconceived as being parallel, simply because the unconceived simply do not exist!<br /><br />Most women today are apprised of the risks incumbent upon their smoking and/or drinking while pregnant. Whether or not this prenatal thing is a "person" or not, we understand that very deleterious effects on the fetus can ensue if the mother carrying it does certain things after a certain point in her pregnancy.<br /><br />So it is settled that we can have some sort of obligation towards a foetus (though of course that obligation itself does not establish anything of consequence to the ethics of abortion at all.) Now imagine (or realize!) that you are a happy person. You enjoy your life immensely. So you are grateful to your parents that they conceived you. Only, one fact cannot be lost sight of. Let us consider the case of a couple having difficulty conceiving. They eventually after five years of vain attempts, have bought about the existence of a foetus.<br /><br />I want you now to imagine that this foetus has grown into you. It is you therefore, who have enjoyed a wonderful future-of-value, and want to keep enjoying that future for as long as you possibly can. The day before you were conceived your parents prayed and longed for a child and, on the day that you were born, their prayers and longings were answered in the form of you.<br /><br />But the fact is that there were many potential sperm from your father that could have fertlised your mother's ovum. This is true both seconds and months before your conception. So there were many potential fetuses other than yourself that could have developed. Hence it is no more feasible to say that you would have been harmed if your parents had no desire to have children, and successfully used contraception, than it is to say that you would have been harmed if your parents had been unable to conceive you since they were separated because of some conference in Oslo or Singapore. Marquis' argument, therefore, easily escapes the misfired attacks of contraception-objectors like Norcross and Korcz. The objection can only be seen as badly obscuring obvious facts surrounding the conception of human foetuses, be they persons or otherwise.<br /><br />CONTRACEPTION AND THE STRUCTURE OF MARQUIS' ARGUMENT<br /><br />Something very important in relation to the structure of Marquis' argument can be learned from the failure of the contraception-objection. Marquis is truly impervious to the question of precisely what the foetus is. For him, the issue is entirely nugatory. But his argument is distinguished not merely by its eschewal of anthropocentrism. The future-of-value account of the wrongness of killing is grounded on the basis that the "possession of a valuable future-like-ours" is a "natural property".<br /><br />Conee, writing under the acknowledged influence of Norcross, alleges that metaphysicians who are "universalists about wholes and parts" would find the contraception-objection amenable. He claims that since Marquis is rationally obligated to admit that in the absence of contraception "at least on occasion..one sperm..would have fertilized the ovum" (because denying that is like denying that someone would have won a cancelled race), he is also, by logical extension committed to one of these propositions:<br /><br /><br />1) No cause deterministically will ensure that some unique sperm will fertilise the ovum.<br /><br /><br />2) Prior to the union of a sperm and the ovum, no "combination entity" exists.<br /><br /><br />So, for Conee, Marquis is able to rationally defend his argument against abortion only if he accepts a particular mereological view. Conee agrees with Norcross that 1) and 2) are highly debatable; in the case of 1) to the point of untenability. People practice contraception because they at least would prefer that their sexual activity not result in the conception of a foetus and the consequent birth of a child. Conee's declares that, if we accept the broader tenets of Marquis' argument, we must conclude that"…the moral status of very many abortions turns on the resolution of this purely ontological issue".<br /><br />Part of the peculiarity of Conee's argument is that it forms but a segment of a wider argument for the thesis that metaphysical theories cannot lend support to either the pro-choice or anti-abortion moral view. He has, however, granted Norcross's analysis of Marquis' argument as resting on a metaphysical premise concerning the status of wholes and parts. It is thus incumbent upon him to show, in support of his conclusion, that the dispute about the morality of abortion cannot be resolved in favour of the anti-abortionist by accepting:<br />a) a mereological doctrine amenable to Marquis' argument<br />b) the success of Marquis' account of the wrongness of killing[10]<br />c) the legitimate ascription of a future-of-value to a standard foetus<br /><br />Conee needs, for his dialectical purposes, to undermine at least any one of these.. He chooses to attack c), and partly b), in order to attempt to strengthen his argument. No more is required of him and thus he presupposes a).[11] But he need not do so because Marquis does not pose any danger to the proposition that metaphysics is irrelevant to the moral status of abortion. For, in my view and pace Norcross, Marquis' argument does not rest on any mereological foundation.<br /><br />If one takes the view that two separate entities do not (automatically) have a mereological fusion on highly technical metaphysical grounds, then, it is agreed, the objection (as Norcross has framed it) cannot succeed. Yet what he, Conee, and Korcz do not come to grips with is that, even embracing the ontological view that such a fusion may exist[12], the point that Marquis makes is that "at the moment of contraception" such a "combination entity" is not identical with any being possessing a valuable future.<br /><br />Earlier I put it to you that "you" would have no more been deprived of the future you have and will experiencing; and are experiencing, had your parents successfully practiced contraception on the day of your conception, than "you" would have been if they had on that day been separated by virtue of an overseas conference. Norcross, alarmingly, accepts this. So does Daniels, who even contends that Marquis' future-like-ours principle confers a broad prima-facie obligation upon each man to have as much unprotected sex as possible (which, he professes, hopefully in jest, might entail rape!), and upon each woman of reproductive age to ensure that she becomes pregnant as frequently as possible.<br /><br />The striking thing about these objectors is not purely that their arguments rest on some very questionable claims surrounding the identity of counterfactual persons. It is that the pivotal error common to them all illuminates the character of Marquis' argument. For Marquis does not argue that abortion is prima facie wrong because it reduces the number of valuable lives-like-ours in the future. Any argument that did would, indeed, render abstinence and celibacy gravely wrong. Marquis' argument, however, is predicated on the notion of identity. The contraception objection, as a reductio, concludes that Marquis' argument is defective on the basis that there must be something seriously amiss with it. Accepting the objection for the sake of argument, what would that be? It seems clear that, at bottom, that it is this: the future-like-ours account of the wrongness of killing either entails, or cannot be distinguished from, the claim that we each have (at least prima facie and in general terms) an obligation to bring as many people into the world as possible. For Norcross, Daniels and Korcz, it would seem that an average healthy, happy adult human being acquired her valuable future-like-ours at the moment that both the sperm from her father, and ovum from her mother that, having united, resulted in her, were in simultaneous existence, (even if that union, at such a point in time, was entirely hypothetical). Sperm are part of the composition of a male body. They are not part of the composition of any possible future individual.<br />For the contraception objection to work we need a) a metaphysic of unrestricted mereological composition, b) a determinism that suggests that a particular sperm is bound to fertilise an ovum, and c) a evidence that the mereological sum of the sperm and ovum in fact possesses an identity relation with the conceptus formed once the constituent parts of the mereological sum physically merge. Even if a) and b) are granted, it is very hard to see how c) could be. R M Hare has argued that immediately following my conception, part of me was a sperm and part of me was an ovum. While it is true that Marquis eschews the personhood approach to the issue of abortion, and so the fact that the mereological sum obviously does not possess personal identity is irrelevant, the obvious- and relevant to Marquis- rejoinder to Hare is simply that since both the sperm and ovum cease to exist, it seems the proposition that I was in any sense a mereological sum of a sperm and an ovum is just as absurd as the idea that I was my parents. By contrast, the claim that I was a conceptus can be corroborated simply by pointing out that there is the continuity of being the same organism.<br /><br />However, what this analysis has revealed is that one of Marquis' central presuppositions is that a person's unique and specific valuable-future-like-ours comes into existence at, or after, conception. At that point, a couple planning on having their first child no longer plan for a hypothetical future individual, but an actual one.[13] Identity, to Marquis, is thus a crucial concept. Marquis has claimed that the contraception objection forms the "strongest" obstacle to the success of his argument. I conclude that if he is correct in this we should find his argument persuasive indeed.<br /><br />[1] I qualify this by stating that I accept that it is at least an open question whether use of, especially, the oral contraceptive pill has facilitated the widespread exploitation of women by men for sexual gratification. Some might also claim that contraception can be wrong for other reasons. But such suggestions do not rest on notions of harm in our sense, and so are irrelevant.<br />[2] Alastair Norcross, "Killing, Abortion, and Contraception: A Reply to Marquis" The Journal of Philosophy, May 1990, pp. 268-77.<br />[3] Op. cit., pp.269-270<br />[4] Op. cit., p.270<br />[5] ibid<br />[6] Earl Conee, "Metaphysics and the Morality of Abortion," Mind 108 (1999) 619-646<br />[7] Charles B. Daniels, "Having a Future" Dialogue 31 (1992) 661-665<br />[8] Keith Allen Korcz, "Two Moral Strategies Regarding Abortion," Journal of Social Philosophy Vol. XXXIII, No. 4, (Winter, 2002) 581-605. Marquis has replied to Korcz in "Korcz's Objections to the Future of Value Argument," Journal of Social Philosophy XXXV, No. 1 (Spring 2004) 56-60<br />[9] Marquis, "Korcz's Objections to the Future of Value Argument," Journal of Social Philosophy XXXV, No. 1 (Spring 2004) p. 57<br />[10] In his article, Conee uses the term "MP" to refer to this.<br />[11] Russell Jacobs, in "Conee and Marquis on Contraception," Southwest Philosophy Review 18 July (2002) 101-105, ( p.101) states: "Earl Conee claims that Don Marquis' Principle MP ("The prima facie wrong-making feature of a killing is the loss to the victim of the value of its future") entails that contraception is immoral." After careful consideration, I am satisfied that Conee does not in fact do such a thing per se.<br />[12] A critic of Norcross and Conee might even argue that the mereological view that there can be such a fusion could in fact assist the antiabortionist in dealing with objections surrounding the moral status of a very early-gestation foetus.<br />[13] Jeffrey Reiman (1996, p. 183) comments that "…to determine whether killing a foetus is morally wrong for the same reasons that killing human beings generally is thought to be, we need to figure out whether there is anything about the foetus that provides a plausible basis for thinking it is…asymmetrically wrong to end its' life". And so he asks "Is there anything about the foetus that makes it seriously worse to kill it than not to have produced it…?", charging (p. 198, n.21) that "Don Marquis overlooks" that "the foetus's existence as such does not make…depriving it of its future..different from…the failure to produce a new fetus…". But Reiman is simply wrong. Marquis does not overlook the point Reiman makes but denies its very validity, for this reason </span></div><br /><br /></span>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-76045670283543497922007-09-10T16:22:00.000+00:002007-09-10T16:53:45.512+00:00Fellowship Program at Harvard Law School in Health LawOpen call for applications for a two-year fellowship in health law policy, biotechnology and bioethics at the Harvard Law School in the Petrie-Flom Center.<br /> <br /><span id="fullpost"><br />The Petrie-Flom Center is an interdisciplinary research program at Harvard Law School dedicated to the scholarly inquiry of important issues at the intersection of law and health policy, including issues of health care financing and market regulation, biomedical research, and bioethics. The Center seeks graduates of exceptional caliber from top law schools or PhD programs in health law, policy and bioethics, and mid-career academic professionals to apply for the highly competitive two-year fellowships to conduct publishable research likely to make a significant contribution to these fields. The fellowship is especially focused on preparing or furthering advancement in participants’ career track in academia. For information on our inaugural group of fellows, please consult the Center’s <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/petrie-flom/">website</a> or for the actual Call for Applications and instructions, see: <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/petrie-flom/fellowship_program/2008_10Call%20for%20apps.pdf">here</a> <br />The Fellowship entails:<br /><br /> * Full-time residency for two years<br /> * A $60,000 stipend per year<br /> * Health insurance, appointment fees, and an additional budget for research expenses<br /> * No teaching responsibilities<br /> * An office in our new facilities on the Harvard Law School campus<br /><br />All application materials must be submitted electronically.<br /><br />The final application deadline is November 15, 2007. <br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-12370847583620821402007-09-04T13:26:00.000+00:002007-09-04T13:32:37.965+00:00IntroductionIntroduction<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />Hello<br /><br />my name is Stuart Oultram.<br /><br />I am currently working as a teaching fellow at Keele University (UK).<br /><br />My interests centre upon moral philosophy and in particular bioethics (broadly construed)and applied ethics in general.<br /><br />Much of my current work focuses on reproductive ethics and the implications of new reproductive technologies.<br /><br /><br /></span>Stuart Oultramhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16688356630727435264noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-25117517399264058312007-08-25T08:40:00.000+00:002007-08-25T07:41:02.345+00:00Dr Google in the houseGoogle is apparently attempting to break into the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/technology/14healthnet.html?ex=1344744000&en=3113f8276565e25b&ei=5088&partner=rssn">lucrative health care market</a>. Primarily they are interested in providing an secure online home for patients health care information. While people may be reluctant to entrust this information to google (many people already have concerns about what information google already holds), they are betting on the internet changing patients behaviour.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><blockquote>Already the Web is allowing people to take a more activist approach to health. According to the Harris survey, 58 percent of people who look online for health information discussed what they found with their doctors in the last year.<br /><br />It is common these days, Dr. Halamka said, for a patient to come in carrying a pile of Web page printouts. “The doctor is becoming a knowledge navigator,” he said. “In the future, health care will be a much more collaborative process between patients and doctors.”<br /><br />Microsoft and Google are hoping this will lead people to seek more control over their own health records, using tools the companies will provide. Neither company will discuss their plans in detail. But Microsoft’s consumer-oriented effort is scheduled to be announced this fall, while Google’s has been delayed and will probably not be introduced until next year, according to people who have been briefed on the companies’ plans.<br /><br />A prototype of Google Health, which the company has shown to health professionals and advisers, makes the consumer focus clear. The welcome page reads, “At Google, we feel patients should be in charge of their health information, and they should be able to grant their health care providers, family members, or whomever they choose, access to this information. Google Health was developed to meet this need.”<br /><br />A presentation of screen images from the prototype — which two people who received it showed to a reporter — then has 17 other Web pages including a “health profile” for medications, conditions and allergies; a personalized “health guide” for suggested treatments, drug interactions and diet and exercise regimens; pages for receiving reminder messages to get prescription refills or visit a doctor; and directories of nearby doctors.</blockquote><br /><br />The usefulness of such a measure, especially in the US is undeniable, given the lack of a coherent health system. However there are serious issues in regards both to privacy and control of patient information. And there are big potential implications for research.<br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-28689609632457936222007-08-24T16:11:00.000+00:002007-08-24T15:12:06.794+00:00Ethics & Pesticide ResearchBrandon Keim has a series of posts over at Wired Science on ethical issues in pesticide research which are worth the read. <br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><a href="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/dow-our-unethic.html">Dow: Our Unethical Tests Show That Nerve Poison is Safe</a><br /><a href="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/why-testing-pes.html">Why Testing Pesticides on People is Wrong, Part One: Unwitting College Students</a><br /><a href="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/why-testing-p-1.html">Why Testing Pesticides on People is Wrong, Part Two: Devilish Details and the Greater Good</a><br /><a href="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/human-pesticide.html">Human Pesticide Testing's Greatest Hits</a><br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-19974173350326128002007-08-23T07:44:00.000+00:002007-08-23T07:55:34.033+00:00The use of drugs as weaponsThe British Medical Association has issued an interesting report on the current and potential future use of drugs in combat and by the military more generally. The report can be found here: <a href="http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFdrugsasweapons/$FILE/DrugsasWeapons.pdf">Download report as a PDF</a><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br />The key points are:<blockquote><br />that the use of drugs as weapons is simply not feasible without generating a significant mortality among the target population. Whether this is a consideration of either pharmacology, toxicology or both will depend on the reader’s point of view. The agent whereby people could be incapacitated without risk of death in a tactical situation does not exist and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future. In such a situation, it is and will continue to be almost impossible to deliver the right agent to the right people in the right dose without exposing the wrong people, or delivering the wrong dose. Countermeasures may be easy to apply if such an attack is expected. This brings into question whether drugs can be used for law enforcement or any other tactical situation in which deaths and injuries should be minimised. From this many ethical considerations flow which include:<br /><br /> * the involvement of healthcare professionals in planning and executing an attack using a drug as a weapon<br /> * gathering data about the effects of the weapon in question<br /> * the role of medicine, including medical knowledge, in weapon development<br /> * the dual responsibility of doctors to do no harm on one hand and on the other to support national security<br /> * the role of healthcare professionals in upholding international law.<br /><br />Ethical considerations aside, the BMA views the interest of governments in the use of drugs as weapons as dangerous for three reasons.<br /><br /> 1. The international legal norms which protect humanity from poison and the deliberate spread of disease which have been put in place by decades of negotiation risk being undermined.<br /> 2. Widespread but responsible deployment of drugs as weapons would inevitably result in their reaching the hands of state or non-state actors for whom lethality among those targeted is not of concern. This would simply be chemical warfare with a medical label.<br /> 3. Using existing drugs as weapons means knowingly moving towards the top of a ‘slippery slope’ at the bottom of which is the spectre of ‘militarization’ of biology; this could include intentional manipulation of peoples' emotions, memories, immune responses or even fertility.</blockquote><br /><br />While the report focuses on the use of chemicals and drugs as weapons, an interesting post here: <a href="http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/08/bioweapons-of-present-and-future-body.html">Bioweapons of the present and the future : The body as battlefield</a> Also discusses the usage of advances in biomedical & neurological sciences on soldiers rather than the enemy.<br /><blockquote><br />This malign use of neuroscience may not be restricted to enemies or opponents. In Iraq, US-Alliance forces used drugs on their own soldiers to heighten alertness. We may soon see troops go into action with chemically-heightened aggression, as well as resistance to fear, pain and fatigue (3). It is not science fiction to suggest we might see military pharmacology that can remove feelings of guilt or post-traumatic stress. The economic temptation is strong, since drug-induced, guilt-free military personnel would save resources; five times more soldiers suffer mental than physical wounds in war.</blockquote><br /><br />These dual usages of medical technology in warfare seems a worrying but inevitable trend, competition and availability lead to a simple conclusion, if you don't do it, your enemy might.<br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-26311907639440009242007-08-19T21:19:00.000+00:002007-08-19T20:19:39.687+00:00The best medicine?In discussions of health care prioritisation it is not uncommon for people to suggest that a list of basic treatments, the best medicines for certain conditions, be established and that these should be publicly provided. This is sometimes known as the basic package approach.<br /><br />Indeed, some see this as the role of the National centre for Clinical Excellence (NICE) here in the UK. In this post I am going to argue that, due to the complexity of medicine, humans and our limited understanding of their interactions that this is an unhelpful viewpoint to take. <br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br />The effects of particular treatments for particular conditions with particular people are to some degree unpredictable. While we do understand to some degree how certain drugs work much of our evidence in regards to effectiveness and efficacy of medicine is based on randomised clinical trials which provide a population measure of effectiveness rather than an individual measure of effectiveness. Each individual is very complex and how they react to individual medications is likewise complex. <br /><br />To give just one example of this from my own experience with Kerry, my first wife who had cystic fibrosis : Kerry was allergic to Panadol, if she had half a Panadol her temperature would drop rapidly (over a 15 minute period her temperature dropped from 39 degrees centigrade to 35!). Since supposedly the only active ingredient of Panadol is 500mg of paracetamol, she was presumably allergic to paracetamol even in small doses since she was only having half a tablet (250mg). However she could tolerate and did take Di-gesic which had more than the amount of paracetamol (325mg) as half a Panadol along with dextropropoxyphene hydrochloride (32.5mg) with no allergic reaction. Even more puzzling lest we think the dextropropoxyphene hydrochloride had some prophylactic effect, when the NZ government switched from funding Di-gesic to funding Paradex, a cheaper generic drug with exactly the same active ingredients as Di-gesic she had precisely the same allergic reaction she had with Panadol. <br /><br />The net implication of this is that while some treatments may usually be low yield, with some conditions, for some patients they will be high yield. Likewise while some treatments may usually be high yield, with some conditions, for some patients they will be low yield and alternative strategies will be preferable. Furthermore individual patients may have co-morbidity and be on other medication for that co-morbidity. This has two effects. Firstly, the chemical interactions with the body become even more complex which makes it harder to predict what the likely outcome is or indeed to even determine what it was. This is particularly problematic with people with serious illnesses who are often on many different medications; Kerry for example at one stage was taking twenty two different medications daily. Secondly, this means that some standard treatments may have to be avoided for some patients because they are already on medication which is contraindicated for co-usage with the standard treatment for their health condition. Thus different treatments for the same condition will be appropriate for different patients. <br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-22516843653418781712007-08-15T06:58:00.000+00:002007-08-15T05:58:58.392+00:00Communicating bad trial results to the mediaAn interesting article on SciDevNet called Trial practitioners must become <a href="http://www.scidev.net/content/opinions/eng/trial-practitioners-must-become-media-savvy.cfm">media savvy</a> drew my attention to this paper: South Africa's Experience of the Closure of the Cellulose Sulphate Microbicide Trial<a href="http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040235&ct=1"></a><br />In PLoS Medicine.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />It is an interesting paper about the media reporting after the ceasing of a trial of a microbicide as a preventative measure for HIV in South Africa. Despite what looks like some fairly good efforts by the researchers to control the story, it escaped them and they report became overblown & misconstrued. <br /><br />They given an excellent list of suggestions for the future of communication in these sorts of events: <br /><blockquote><br /> * Emphasise community education.<br /> * Explain and emphasise to the community that HIV seroconversion is the only way to measure effectiveness of new prevention technologies including microbicides (i.e., there are no surrogate markers of infection that can be used in trials).<br /> * Educate the media and community about clinical trials, including regulatory procedures and good clinical practice guidelines followed by clinical trialists.<br /> * Develop early drafts of press releases of all possible DSMC outcomes—positive, negative, and no effect—in partnership with local researchers and community representatives.<br /> * Inform local ethics committees, drug regulatory authorities, and health authorities of trial outcome prior to press release.<br /> * In drafting press releases, be sure to include the contribution of in-country investigators, community advisory boards, and other relevant bodies.<br /> * Issue the press release in developing countries where the research is conducted. At the press conference, it is valuable to include the local principal investigator and representatives of the trial sponsor, ethics committee, and the local health authority.</blockquote><br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-36936936028069627912007-08-13T10:43:00.000+00:002007-08-13T10:58:51.353+00:00NHS Scale research testingBen Goldacre appears to be running a series on how pharmaceutical corporations contribute to the high cost of health care in the Guardian: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/04/sciencenews">Evil ways of the drug companies</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/11/drugs">Spectacularly expensive cost of trial and error</a><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />In this post I will discuss the second article where he makes an interesting argument for whole scale medical testing in the NHS to reduce medical costs:<br /><br /><blockquote>Imagine there are two drugs called Sixofone and Halfadozen. Nobody knows which one is better for treating sickitis. The drug companies periodically do trials, but funnily their own drug always seems to come out the best.<br /><br />In our clinic, the doctor sees 200 patients in a month with sickitis. If she gives Sixofone or Halfadozen to her patients at random, on a whim, as a reflection of her own indecisiveness, then the regulation is the same as for any prescription: give reasonable verbal information about risks and benefits, thus obtaining informed consent, and so on.<br /><br />But let's say the same doctor, in a spirit of inquiry, recognises that there is massive clinical uncertainty - nobody knows which of these drugs is better after all - and she wants to test her hunches, rather than simply act on them. Then she's in trouble.<br /><br />She could run a speculative little trial, giving 100 patients Sixofone, and compare them with the others on Halfadozen. But she'd be struck off, unless she went through so much red tape that the idea becomes unmanageable.<br /><br />After passing through the endless obstructive and bureaucratic hoops of the ethics committees, from each and every patient she would need to obtain elaborate written consent, and give huge amounts of information. Remember, nobody knows which is best, and if she wanted to hand over the same drugs, entirely at whim, outside of her "trial", there'd be no problem. This is a huge double standard, and it costs us knowledge.<br /><br />But if we ever had a scientist in charge of health, instead of tinkering with payments to big pharma, they would do one simple thing: move hell and high water to collect and collate the best and cheapest evidence on healthcare. First you would give huge amounts of money to the Cochrane Collaboration, which collects and collates data independently on all healthcare interventions, and is quietly one of the most subversive organisations ever to be created, because it blows the lid on false commercial claims.<br /><br />Doctors waste money by irrational prescribing decisions, so give them clean, clear, accessible information, and that will stop.<br /><br />But more than that, we are in a unique position to generate data: we have inherited an extraordinary information resource, in this vast monolith of the NHS.<br /><br />Nobody knows what the best treatment for stroke is, but if we randomised every single new stroke patient in the UK, over one week, into a rough trial, we'd have our answers in a couple of years.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Part of the target of his article is research ethics committees, who he claims are in effect complicit in a huge double standard, namely that doctors can prescribe according to their whims in practice, but not in research... Of course in practice this only applies when we have two reasonably equal treatments. I'm happy to agree there are sometimes biases built into the system of review, for example there is a huge bias towards the existing standard of treatment, regardless of how weak the evidence base is for that treatment. But I think this issue here is a non-starter. If we have two treatments for a condition which appear to be equally valuable, then almost certainly through out the country physicians will already be prescribing both of these. Why go through the unnecessary cost and hassle of a clinical trial, when we could get similar results, just by consulting already existing patients notes. Research ethics committee permission would still need to be obtained of course, but this is much less of a hassle than constructing a clinical trial.<br /><br />There is of course also a presumption built into the article, namely that there is such a thing as a best treatment for a specific condition. But it is unclear that this is the case, it is likely instead that things are more complex than this, and what will suit one patient will not suit others. At best we can establish something less grand, namely the medicine most likely to be best.<br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-55810701389270109892007-08-09T10:49:00.000+00:002007-08-09T09:49:47.286+00:00Snapshots of Research Ethics around the world and around the webResearch ethics is an interesting field because although most countries seem to support similar sounding values in our research ethics systems these systems are often radically different from each other. Likewise different disciplines approach ethics differently. In this post, I'm going to present four snapshots of research ethics from 3 different countries and 4 different disciplines.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />First up is this excellent post: <a href="http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/an-inside-outsiders-view-of-human-research-ethics-review/">An inside-outsider’s view of Human Research Ethics Review</a> From Greg Downey, a member of the Department of Anthropology at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. In it he discusses the ethics review of ethnography, both as a researcher and as a member of the University's research ethics committee. He responds to an article: Katz, Jack. 2006. Ethical Escape Routes for Underground Ethnographers. American Ethnologist 33(4):499-506.<br /><br />Secondly there is this post: <a href="http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/2007/07/28/e-research-ethics-a-note-from-mallory-wober/">e-Research Ethics: A Note from Mallory Wober</a> by William H. Dutton, Director of the Oxford Internet Institute , Professor of Internet Studies, University of Oxford. It is a fascinating post of a discussion of some of the ethical issues involved in online research. <br /><br />Thirdly there is this post: <a href="http://institutionalreviewblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/irbs-vs-departmental-review.html">IRBs vs. Departmental Review</a> by Zachary M. Schrag, Assistant Professor of History, George Mason University, USA. Which contains a discussion between myself and Zach about the best form of oversight for oral history projects.<br /><br />Finally there is my own post here: <a href="http://philosophyandbioethics.blogspot.com/2007/08/research-ethics-in-uk-present-system.html">Research Ethics in the UK: The present "system"</a> which summarises the current state of play in regards to ethics review in the UK.<br /><br />If you are interested in cross cultural comparisons of the ethics review that is carried out in universities, this is probably not a bad starting point.<br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-29000523695264662672007-08-08T08:57:00.000+00:002007-08-08T07:58:20.823+00:00I hate Bioethicists?Back in June Maurice Bernstein on <a href="http://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/">Bioethics Discussion Blog</a> had an interesting post called <a href="http://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-hate-doctors-and-brief-study-on.html">"I Hate Doctors and..." A Brief Study on Google Search</a><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />In this post he detailed his experience of his blog being found in 2005 by someone who had searched for "I hate doctors". Inspired by this Maurice decided to use google search results as a litmus test for the popularity of doctors here are his results:<br /><blockquote>Doctors 18,300<br />Nurses 659<br />Lawyers 10,100<br />Politicians 994<br />Ministers 5<br />Police 704<br />Judges 676<br />Actors 623<br />Actresses 190<br />Plumbers 424<br />Used Car Dealers 127<br />New Car Dealers 7<br />Insurance Agents 10, Insurance Companies 684<br />Realtors 505</blockquote><br /><br />You might be concerned then about bioethicists, well not to worry, we may not be hugely loved, but at least we aren't hated...<br />Hated: <br />Philosophers: 154<br />Medical Ethicists: 1<br />Bioethicists: 0<br />Ethicists: 0<br /><br />Loved:<br />Philosophers: 109<br />Bioethicists: 1<br />Medical ethicists: 0<br />Ethicists: 0<br /><br />Of course the differences between us and doctors can be easily explained by the vastly smaller numbers of bioethicists, still it is nice to be loved! <br /><br />On a serious note it is interesting that doctors are so unpopular, and an interesting discussion of if and why this is the case can be found on the bioethics discussion blog. My own view is that it is twofold. Firstly, it is easy for doctors, even with the best of intentions, to fall into the trap of paternalism, which I think makes them less popular. Secondly they are in a very hard position, where they will not, for a variety of reasons be able to help everyone, and trying to help can sometimes make things worse rather than better. Sometimes treatment can end up a little like the old lady who swallowed a fly, you end up having to chase the fly away with a spider which then means you have to add a bird to catch the spider and so on. Being the person who keeps introducing the new pests is not a popular position. <br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4924069477103365664.post-77554177398036945882007-08-07T10:24:00.000+00:002007-08-07T09:24:32.637+00:00Google Reader as a means of keeping up with journals, news, blogs and anything elseSince posting <a href="http://philosophyandbioethics.blogspot.com/2007/07/motherlode-of-your-very-own.html">A motherlode of your very own</a> I've had a few people email me to ask for more details on how to set up an RSS feed aggregator of their own. I've chosen to do this with Google Reader for three reasons, firstly it wasn't mentioned in the above post, because it is a powerful but intuitive feed reader, and judging by the readership of this blogs feed, quite popular. Most of the steps here are reasonably generic though and can be applied to different feed readers.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Step by step guide</span><br />Before we begin, a little bit of disambiguation. Google Reader and other feed aggregators are powered by RSS feed, which stands for really simple syndication (Actually it didn't originally, but most sites now tell you it does). Basically a site might publish an RSS feed to let its readers know that there is new content, so rather than having to keep on looking themselves, or signing up to bulky email updates, people who are interested can quickly tell if there is something new, that they find worth reading. It is built into most blogs as a matter of course, and many news agencies have now adopted it as well. As have many publishers. As such there is a rich array of feeds out there. To find rss feeds, look for this little orange symbol you can see to the right. <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/PhilosophyAndBioethics" rel="alternate" title="Subscribe to my feed" type="application/rss+xml"><img alt="" style="border: 0pt none ;" src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon32x32.png" /></a><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/PhilosophyAndBioethics" rel="alternate" title="Subscribe to my feed" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a><br />May also find some text which says something like subscribe to my feed or atom or xml feed. This could be in a side bar, or sometimes at the bottom of a page.<br /><br />Fortunately, Firefox and I believe Internet Explorer 7 now make it easier on sites like this one with a feed, they autodiscover it. If you look in the address bar at the top of the page you will see that little orange symbol, click on it, and you will be whisked to the feed for this site. OPML stands for some incomprehensible jargon, but the basic idea is that (in this context) OPML means a list of RSS feeds, in effect a Reading List, so if you want to add a whole lot of RSS feeds to a feed reader all at once, OPML is the way to do it.<br /><br />1. First you need to decide whether you wish to begin with a <span style="font-style: italic;">tabula rasa</span>, or whether you want to begin with a whole lot of feeds and then adjust them to suit. This is up to you personally I like to trim down and customise rather than start fresh, so I am going to be presuming you will use the OPML file/reading list that underwrites the <a href="http://grazr.com/gzpanel.html?theme=gloss_black&view=o&menu=on&fontsize=8pt&file=http://www.opmlmanager.com/opml/idmonfish.opml">Motherlode</a> as your starting point.<br /><br />2. As such you need a copy of that... (You can skip this step if you are starting from a blank slate). There are two ways to get this OPML file. The first and laziest way is to download it from this link here: <a href="http://www.box.net/shared/pin3pvxbh8">Motherlode OPML Made Easy</a><br />Save this somewhere easy to find like your desktop.<br />However that link will only be updated when I remember to update it, so it is not likely to be the most recent version of the <a href="http://grazr.com/gzpanel.html?theme=gloss_black&view=o&menu=on&fontsize=8pt&file=http://www.opmlmanager.com/opml/idmonfish.opml">Motherlode</a>. If you want the most recent version you will have to download it yourself. You can do this by going here: <a href="http://www.opmlmanager.com/opml/idmonfish.opml">Motherlode OPML</a> This will open up a page that looks like this:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0ImGCmMI/AAAAAAAAACo/FnO_xfM_fpY/s1600-h/opml+picture.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0ImGCmMI/AAAAAAAAACo/FnO_xfM_fpY/s400/opml+picture.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095880300639197378" border="0" /></a><br />You then need to save the webpage as an opml file. To do this go to File, then Save Webpage As, in the dialog box add a .opml to the end and save the file to your desktop (So the file should be called idmonfish.opml)<br /><br />3. Now you need to go to google reader which is here: <a href="https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?hl=en&nui=1&service=reader&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freader%2F">Google reader</a> If you have used google products before such as gmail then you just need to enter your account details and passwords in to the box circled in red in the picture:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdWGCmII/AAAAAAAAACI/2efcbeA629w/s1600-h/google+account+sign+in.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdWGCmII/AAAAAAAAACI/2efcbeA629w/s400/google+account+sign+in.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095879557609855106" border="0" /></a><br /><br />and move on to the next step. If you don't have a google account then you need to sign up for one which you can do here: <a href="https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount?continue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freader%2F&service=reader&hl=en">New google account</a> Once that is done, then sign into the account.<br /><br />4. You should now see a screen that looks like this:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0rWGCmSI/AAAAAAAAADY/7gzWNb6Ocsg/s1600-h/welcome+to+google+reader.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0rWGCmSI/AAAAAAAAADY/7gzWNb6Ocsg/s400/welcome+to+google+reader.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095880897639651618" border="0" /></a><br />The <a href="http://www.google.com/help/reader/help.html">tour</a> is worth a read. However for now click manage subscriptions on the bottom left, circled in red in this picture:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdmGCmKI/AAAAAAAAACY/Xo9CiKJ4BSM/s1600-h/Manage+Subscriptions.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdmGCmKI/AAAAAAAAACY/Xo9CiKJ4BSM/s400/Manage+Subscriptions.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095879561904822434" border="0" /></a><br /><br />5. Here you want to click on Import/Export which I have circled in red in this picture:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdmGCmLI/AAAAAAAAACg/Xre5PsCY2qo/s1600-h/Import+export.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdmGCmLI/AAAAAAAAACg/Xre5PsCY2qo/s400/Import+export.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095879561904822450" border="0" /></a><br /><br />This will open up a dialogue box asking you to select an OPML file. Click on the browse button which will pop up a box to find the file. If you have followed the above instructions you will need to go to the desktop and find idmonfish.opml as shown here circled in red:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0JGGCmQI/AAAAAAAAADI/riCkFFN692U/s1600-h/upload.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0JGGCmQI/AAAAAAAAADI/riCkFFN692U/s400/upload.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095880309229132034" border="0" /></a><br />If you have named the file differently or put it somewhere different then that is where/what you need to look for. Once you have selected the right file, hit upload.<br /><br />6. This should take a little while but ultimately take you to a page like this:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0rWGCmRI/AAAAAAAAADQ/NZeUfhPxt_E/s1600-h/uploaded.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0rWGCmRI/AAAAAAAAADQ/NZeUfhPxt_E/s400/uploaded.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095880897639651602" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Here you can add tags and do all sorts of fun things with your feeds, but it is probably best to mess with that later, for now just click "back to google reader" Then hit home up on the left hand side of the screen which should then look something like this:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0I2GCmNI/AAAAAAAAACw/5cgChSnTAVo/s1600-h/reader+home.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0I2GCmNI/AAAAAAAAACw/5cgChSnTAVo/s400/reader+home.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095880304934164690" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Your google reader is split into three areas, the first of which contains the home button and allows some meta navigation. When you hit the home button it will show you all the feeds that have new content since your last visit.<br /><br />Below this is the reading list which contains all the feeds:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0I2GCmOI/AAAAAAAAAC4/n8Uh7oz9W8s/s1600-h/reader+navigation+list.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0I2GCmOI/AAAAAAAAAC4/n8Uh7oz9W8s/s400/reader+navigation+list.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095880304934164706" border="0" /></a><br />Notice that currently most of them are grey, this means there is presently no new items, when there are new items they turn black.<br /><br />Finally there is the reading pane, where the messages themselves can be read:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0JGGCmPI/AAAAAAAAADA/MilHRIGbqn0/s1600-h/reader+navigation+pane.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/Rrg0JGGCmPI/AAAAAAAAADA/MilHRIGbqn0/s400/reader+navigation+pane.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095880309229132018" border="0" /></a><br /><br />7. To see google reader in action click on one of the feeds, I have chosen the table of contents for <span style="font-style: italic;">Bioethics</span>. A tip box will pop up, just click dismiss and move onto this:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdWGCmJI/AAAAAAAAACQ/UrecF-QV0-U/s1600-h/expanded+view.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdWGCmJI/AAAAAAAAACQ/UrecF-QV0-U/s400/expanded+view.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095879557609855122" border="0" /></a><br />Which is the expanded view, this gives an at a glance overview of the contents of a feed, so you can scroll down to read the latest table of contents for <span style="font-style: italic;">Bioethics</span>. Alternatively you can use the list view which I circled in red in the previous picture. Just click there and it will look like this:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdGGCmHI/AAAAAAAAACA/d2M-CZmSuOA/s1600-h/list+view.JPG"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kyJFkaWS47c/RrgzdGGCmHI/AAAAAAAAACA/d2M-CZmSuOA/s400/list+view.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5095879553314887794" border="0" /></a><br />As you can see you get a list of titles of the posts, which you can quickly scroll through, selecting to read only these posts which I think is more efficient, so I prefer it.<br /><br />There are plenty more tips and tricks for using google reader well, but that is the basics of it.<br /><br /></span>David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com0