PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Eric T Juengst

Publications and source records attributed to Eric T Juengst.

17 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Antiaging medicine and mild cognitive impairment: practice and policy issues for geriatrics.

The claim that aging itself is treatable or even preventable has repeatedly been made over the centuries. Antiaging medicine is the current leader of approaches that even claim that geriatrics as a discipline will become increasingly unnecessary. The concept of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) as a condition intermediate between normal cognitive aging and Alzheimer's disease highlights the conceptual and practical difficulty of differentiating aging from disease. What should geriatricians and their organizations make of scientifically mainstream attempts to decelerate, arrest, or compress aspects of the normal human aging, including the brain aging process? This article reviews the political, philosophical, practice-related, and economical implications of antiaging medicine for geriatrics using MCI as a practical example. It concludes by suggesting actions that geriatricians should consider to strengthen their profession and to improve patient care in response to the challenges of longevity medicine.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Ethical issues in identifying and recruiting participants for familial genetic research.

Family-based research is essential to understanding the genetic and environmental etiology of human disease. The success of family-based research often depends on investigators' ability to identify, recruit, and achieve a high participation rate among eligible family members. However, recruitment of family members raises ethical concerns due to the tension between protecting participants' privacy and promoting research quality, and guidelines for these activities are not well established. The Cancer Genetics Network Bioethics Committee assembled a multidisciplinary group to explore the scientific and ethical issues that arise in the process of family-based recruitment. The group used a literature review as well as expert opinion to develop recommendations about appropriate approaches to identifying, contacting, and recruiting family members. We conclude that there is no single correct approach, but recommend a balanced approach that takes into account the nature of the particular study as well as its recruitment goals. Recruitment of family members should be viewed as part of the research protocol and should require appropriate informed consent of the already-enrolled participant. Investigators should inform prospective participants why they are being contacted, how information about them was obtained, and what will happen to that information if they decide not to participate. The recruitment process should also be sensitive to the fact that some individuals from families at increased genetic risk will have no prior knowledge of their risk status. These recommendations are put forward to promote further discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to family-based recruitment. They suggest a framework for considering alternative recruitment strategies and their implications, as well as highlight areas in need of further empirical research.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2004

Anti-aging medicine: can consumers be better protected?

The use of interventions claiming to prevent, retard, or reverse aging is proliferating. Some of these interventions can seriously harm older persons and aging baby boomers who consume them. Others that are merely ineffective may divert patients from participating in beneficial regimens and also cause them economic harm. "Free market regulation" does not seem to weed out risky, ineffective, and fraudulent anti-aging treatments and products. Public health messages, apparently, are having little effect. What more can be done to achieve better protection for older consumers? An analysis of the potential for federal and state action reveals many barriers to effective governmental regulation of anti-aging interventions. In view of dim prospects for stronger public regulation, physicians and other professionals--especially geriatricians and gerontologists--will need to be more aggressive in protecting older consumers. In particular, The Gerontological Society of America and the American Geriatrics Society should undertake a sustained program of specific educational efforts, directed at health professionals and the general public, in which they sort out as best they can the helpful, the harmful, the fraudulent, and the harmless anti-aging practices and products.

Advertising↗
PubMed2004

FACE facts: why human genetics will always provoke bioethics.

Some people dispute the relative importance of issues in genetics and biotechnology for the future of bioethics, either because they think the problems are time-limited or because they give priority to issue of human rights and social justice in health care. In fact, the special historical standing of genetic issue s in bioethics reflects four overlapping sources of moral sensitivity which ar inherent in the stories that genetic science tells and raise paradigmatic justice concerns: the implications of new genetic knowledge for people's understanding of their familial roles, ancestral origins, community memberships, and ethnic affiliations. Beneath worries over "genetic privacy," "the therapeutic gap," and the "post-human," this constellation of basic wellspring which both insures and justifies a central place for genetics on the agenda of bioethics.

Bioethical Issues↗
PubMed2003

Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: genetic counselors' clinical experience.

When a patient refuses to inform relatives of their risk for genetic disease, the genetic healthcare professional is faced with conflicting ethical obligations. On one side of the issue is the obligation to respect and protect patients' right to privacy. On the other side is the obligation to prevent harm and promote the welfare of the family members, which suggests a responsibility to warn at-risk relatives, even without the patient's consent. In an effort to examine the actual clinical impact of this issue, we conducted a pilot study that explored genetic counselors' experience with this conflict. A survey was developed and made available to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Questions were either multiple-choice responses or open-ended. Almost half of respondents (119/259; 46%) had had a patient refuse to notify an at-risk relative. The most commonly cited reasons for refusal were estranged family relationships, altering family dynamics, insurance discrimination, and employment discrimination, respectively. Of these 119 counselors, 24 (21%) reported that they seriously considered warning the at-risk relatives without patient consent, and one actually did disclose. Three factors consistently made the counselors less likely to disclose: their patient's potential emotional reaction, the relationship between the relative and patient, and the chance that the relative could be aware of the disease by another means. These results suggest that while the conflict is often encountered in clinical practice, it is rare that the situation remains unresolved to the extent that genetic counselors actually consider warning at-risk relatives. However, when the situation was encountered, the counselors in this study reported a lower rate of disclosure without consent than would have been anticipated based on previous studies that used hypothetical situations. It may be that counselors do not recognize a duty to warn at-risk relatives as integral to their role and professional obligations.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1998

Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: conceptually confusing, morally hazardous, and practically useless.

Some argue that human groups have a stake in the outcome of population-genomics research and that the decision to participate in such research should therefore be subject to group permission. It is not possible, however, to obtain prior group permission, because the actual human groups under study, human demes, are unidentifiable before research begins. Moreover, they lack moral standing. If identifiable social groups with moral standing are used as proxies for demes, group approval could be sought, but at the expense of unfairly exposing these surrogates to risks from which prior group approval is powerless to protect them. Unless population genomics can proceed without targeting socially defined groups, or can find other ways of protecting them, it may fall to individuals to protect the interests of the groups they care about, and to scientists to warn their subjects of the need to do so.

Cultural Diversity↗