PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Julian Savulescu

Publications and source records attributed to Julian Savulescu.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Patients who challenge.

Individuals have different values. They seek to express their individuality even when receiving medical care. It is a part of modern medical practice and respect for patient autonomy to show respect for different values. We give an account of what it means to respect different values and challenging patients in medical practice. Challenging choices are often choices which are perceived by many to be either irrational or against a person's interests, such as engaging in harmful or excessively risky activities. When the medical profession is involved in such choices, the basic medical principle of acting in a person's best interests is challenged. Often doctors refuse to respect controversial choices on paternalistic grounds. We should all respect and facilitate the controversial choices of competent individuals, subject to resource limitations, our own and others well-being and autonomy, and the public interest. But more importantly, sometimes such choices make for a better, more autonomous life. Sometimes, such choices reflect considerations of global well-being or altruism, or idiosyncratic attitudes to risk. Sometimes, they reflect unusual values. However, in some other cases, controversial choices are irrational and are not expressions of our autonomy. Doctors should assist patients to make rational if individual choices. The patient also bears the responsibility for bringing his beliefs to the attention of the clinician.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed2006

Addiction and autonomy: can addicted people consent to the prescription of their drug of addiction?

It is often claimed that the autonomy of heroin addicts is compromised when they are choosing between taking their drug of addiction and abstaining. This is the basis of claims that they are incompetent to give consent to be prescribed heroin. We reject these claims on a number of empirical and theoretical grounds. First we argue that addicts are likely to be sober, and thus capable of rational thought, when approaching researchers to participate in research. We reject behavioural evidence purported to establish that addicts lack autonomy. We present an argument that extrinsic forces must be irresistible in order to make a choice non-autonomous. We argue that heroin does not present such an irresistible force. We make a case that drug-oriented desires are strong regular appetitive desires, which do not compromise consent. Finally we argue that an addict's apparent desire to engage in a harmful act cannot be construed as evidence of irrational or compulsive thought. On these arguments, a sober heroin addict must be considered competent, autonomous and capable of giving consent. More generally, any argument against legalisation of drugs or supporting infringement of the liberty of those desiring to take drugs of addiction must be based on considerations of harm and paternalism, and not on false claims that addicts lack freedom of the will.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Behavioural genetics: why eugenic selection is preferable to enhancement.

Criminal behaviour is but one behavioural tendency for which a genetic influence has been suggested. Whilst this research certainly raises difficult ethical questions and is subject to scientific criticism, one recent research project suggests that for some families, criminal tendency might be predicted by genetics. In this paper, supposing this research is valid, we consider whether intervening in the criminal tendency of future children is ethically justifiable. We argue that, if avoidance of harm is a paramount consideration, such an intervention is acceptable when genetic selection is employed instead of genetic enhancement. Moreover, other moral problems in avoiding having children with a tendency to criminal behaviour, such as the prospect of social discrimination, can also be overcome.

Antisocial Personality Disorder↗
PubMed2005

Spare embryos: 3000 reasons to rethink the significance of genetic relatedness.

IVF laws in Victoria, Australia provide that human embryos must not remain in storage in excess of 5 years. Studies reviewing the fate of surplus human embryos reveal that close to 90% of couples choose to discard their excess embryos and that hundreds of embryos are disposed of annually. It has been argued that human embryos are a valuable resource and that there is a need to consider educational programmes to encourage couples to donate spare embryos to other infertile couples, rather than discard them. Surveys show that one reason that so few embryos are donated is that couples attach great significance to genetic parenthood. Advances in reproductive technology may necessitate a review of biological definitions of family and the importance of genetic relatedness. It can be argued that it is unreasonable to conclude that genetic ties are so significant that embryos should be discarded rather than donated and raised by non-genetically related parents. It is suggested that education programmes should encourage reflection on people's beliefs about the importance of genetic relatedness with regard to what makes a family. Open embryo donation or directed embryo donation programmes might cause couples to change their minds, or alleviate their anxiety about donating embryos to others.

Attitude↗
PubMed2005

New breeds of humans: the moral obligation to enhance.

This paper argues that we have a moral obligation to enhance human beings. It is argued that if one is committed to the moral obligation to treat and prevent disease, one is also committed to genetic and other enhancement in so far as this promotes human well-being. It is argued that this is not eugenic but expresses our fundamental human nature: to make rational decisions and to try to improve ourselves. To be human is to strive to be better.

Ethics, Clinical↗
PubMed2004

Abortion: time to clarify Australia's confusing laws.

Australian criminal law is a matter for states and territories. In relation to abortion, many laws are unclear and outdated, and are inconsistent between states and territories. Doctors practise under time constraints and on a case-by-case basis. Most current laws have grey areas that leave doctors vulnerable to accusations, negative publicity and career damage, especially in the case of late abortions. All jurisdictions should follow the Australian Capital Territory's lead in allowing women to access abortion without fear of criminal prosecution. Federal, state and territory governments should introduce a single clear national law on abortion, both in early and late pregnancy.

Abortion, Legal↗