PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Kris Dierickx

Publications and source records attributed to Kris Dierickx.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

How international is bioethics? A quantitative retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Studying the contribution of individual countries to leading journals in a specific discipline can highlight which countries have the most impact on that discipline and whether a geographic bias exists. This article aims to examine the international distribution of publications in the field of bioethics. METHODS: Retrospective quantitative study of nine peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics and medical ethics (Bioethics, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Hastings Center Report, Journal of Clinical Ethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Nursing Ethics, Christian Bioethics, and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics). RESULTS: In total, 4,029 articles published between 1990 and 2003 were retrieved from the nine bioethical journals under study. The United States (59.3%, n = 2390), the United Kingdom (13.5%, n = 544), Canada (4%, n = 160) and Australia (3.8%, n = 154) had the highest number of publications in terms of absolute number of publications. When normalized to population size, smaller affluent countries, such as New Zealand, Finland and Sweden were more productive than the United States. The number of studies originating from the USA was decreasing in the period between 1990 and 2003. CONCLUSION: While a lot of peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics profile themselves as international journals, they certainly do not live up to what one would expect from an "international" journal. The fact that English speaking countries, and to a larger extent American authors, dominate the international journals in the field of bioethics is a clear geographic bias towards the bioethical discussions that are going on in these journals.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2006

Carrier testing in minors: a systematic review of guidelines and position papers.

The objective of this article is to review all published normative ethical and clinical guidelines concerning the genetic carrier testing of minors. The databases Medline, Philosopher's Index, Biological Abstracts, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched using keywords relating to the carrier testing of children. We also searched the websites of the national bioethics committees indexed on the websites of WHO and the German Reference Center for Ethics in the Life Sciences, the Human Genetics Societies of various nations indexed on the website of the International Federation of Human Genetics Societies and related links, and the national medical associations indexed on the website of the World Medical Association. We retrieved 14 guidelines emanating from 24 different groups. All guidelines advanced the following preferences: (1) carrier testing should not be performed in children, and (2) testing should be deferred until the child can give proper informed consent to be tested. The guidelines varied in three areas: (a) the role of genetic services in ensuring that children are informed about their carrier status and associated risks when they are older; (b) exceptions to the general rule of withholding or deferring carrier testing; and (c) the communication of incidentally discovered carrier status. In the absence of compelling reasons, carrier testing of a child can reasonably be deferred until the child has the intellectual capacity needed to discern if and when to be tested.

Child↗
PubMed2006

Evidence-based medicine and its role in ethical decision-making.

The recent emergence of evidence-based medicine (EBM) presents medical ethics with the challenge of analyzing what is the current best medical evidence in ethical decision making. This article concludes that the use of the best available, most recently published research findings is a primary moral obligation. However, this does not automatically mean that the use of these research findings will lead to better ethical decision making. Research data can be distorted by methodological failings in the design and reporting of experiments, or by technical and commercial bias. Moreover, the introduction of norms, values, principles and ethical theories can lead to other choices than those proposed by empirical research findings. Ethical decision making must be informed and legitimated by the best available medical research. Nevertheless, ethical decision making is still primarily a choice based on values and norms.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2006

Author, contributor or just a signer? A quantitative analysis of authorship trends in the field of bioethics.

Publications are primarily a means of communicating scientific information to colleagues, but they are much more than that. Publications in peer reviewed journals are proof of academic competence, are used as a crucial component in evaluation criteria for academic promotion and fundraising and increase the prestige of research centres and universities. The urgent need for publications has also led to abuses in authorship. In the past the single-author article was the rule, but over the past decades, the average number of authors on scientific manuscripts has drastically increased. In the field of bioethics, however, no research has been undertaken to study whether the percentage of single-author articles is decreasing, the proportion of multi-author articles is increasing or the average number of authors per article is increasing. The objective of this research is to analyze these trends in authorship for the period 1990-2003 in peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics. In the nine peer reviewed journals from the field of bioethics we studied, we observed a significant increase of the multi-author article and of the average number of authors. This is mainly due to the increase in the number of publications with an empirical design. This growing trend is a challenge for the editors of journals in the field of bioethics to enhance awareness about the value and definition of authorship.

Authorship↗
PubMed2005

The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics.

Since its origin, bioethics has attracted the collaboration of few social scientists, and social scientific methods of gathering empirical data have remained unfamiliar to ethicists. Recently, however, the clouded relations between the empirical and normative perspectives on bioethics appear to be changing. Three reasons explain why there was no easy and consistent input of empirical evidence in bioethics. Firstly, interdisciplinary dialogue runs the risk of communication problems and divergent objectives. Secondly, the social sciences were absent partners since the beginning of bioethics. Thirdly, the meta-ethical distinction between 'is' and 'ought' created a 'natural' border between the disciplines. Now, bioethics tends to accommodate more empirical research. Three hypotheses explain this emergence. Firstly, dissatisfaction with a foundationalist interpretation of applied ethics created a stimulus to incorporate empirical research in bioethics. Secondly, clinical ethicists became engaged in empirical research due to their strong integration in the medical setting. Thirdly, the rise of the evidence-based paradigm had an influence on the practice of bioethics. However, a problematic relationship cannot simply and easily evolve into a perfect interaction. A new and positive climate for empirical approaches has arisen, but the original difficulties have not disappeared.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2004

What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis.

The field of bioethics is increasingly coming into contact with empirical research findings. In this article, we ask what role empirical research can play in the process of ethical clarification and decision-making. Ethical reflection almost always proceeds in three steps: the description of the moral question, the assessment of the moral question and the evaluation of the decision-making. Empirical research can contribute to each step of this process. In the description of the moral object, first of all, empirical research has a role to play in the description of morally relevant facts. It plays a role in answering the "reality-revealing questions" (what, why, how, who, where and when), in assessing the consequences and in proposing alternative courses of action. Secondly, empirical research plays a role in assessing the moral question. It must be acknowledged that research possesses "the normative power of the factual," which can also become normative by suppressing other norms. However, inductive normativity should always be balanced out by a deductive form of normativity. Thirdly, empirical research also has a role to play in evaluating the decision-making process. It can rule out certain moral choices by pointing out the occurrence of certain unexpected consequences or effects. It can also be useful, however, as a sociology of bioethics in which the discipline of bioethics itself becomes an object of research.

Bioethical Issues↗