PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Pierre Mallia

Publications and source records attributed to Pierre Mallia.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Pragmatic approaches to genetic screening.

Pragmatic approaches to genetic testing are discussed and appraised. Whilst there are various schools of pragmatism, the Deweyan approach seems to be the most appreciated in bioethics as it allows a historical approach indebted to Hegel. This in turn allows the pragmatist to specify and balance principles in various contexts. There are problems with where to draw a line between what is referred to here as the micro- and macro-level of doing bioethics, unless one is simply to be classified as a principlist. Whilst most discussions on genetics occur at a macro level, most specifying must be done also at a micro level - the clinical encounter. Whilst pragmatism encourages us to understand better social and scientific factors and puts into perspective statements like 'playing God', doubts are raised about the 'consensus' process and how one can put aside fundamental values such as the moral status of the embryo on which there is general disagreement. If those doing pragmatism do not endorse these values, there seems to be little ground for process and compromise with those who do. It seems therefore that pragmatism cannot ignore values, even those which are not endorsed by everyone.

Abortion, Eugenic↗
PubMed2005

Applying theological developments to bioethical issues such as genetic screening.

Catholic movements within the centre of Roman Catholic doctrine recently have discussed Trinitarian theology as applied to sciences, arts, economics, health and other social areas. We explore the possibilities Trinitarian theology offers to bioethical debate, concentrating particularly on genetic screening and testing. It is important therefore to analyse the philosophical implications of this approach onto the bioethical world, where much disagreement occurs on fundamental issues. It is Catholic basic teaching to recognize and see God's hand in plurality, not merely as a cliche and then doing what we feel is right, but to recognize how to live in a pluralistic world. We recognize, in agreement with these theologians, that in order for a Trinitarian mode of understanding to be used by those doing bioethical debate, there is a need to depart from fundamentalism.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2003

From what should we protect future generations: germ-line therapy or genetic screening?

This paper discusses the issue of whether we have responsibilities to future generations with respect to genetic screening, including for purposes of selective abortion or discard. Future generations have been discussed at length among scholars. The concept of 'Guardian for Future Generations' is tackled and its main criticisms discussed. Whilst germ-line cures, it is argued, can only affect family trees, genetic screening and testing can have wider implications. If asking how this may affect future generations is a legitimate question and since we indeed make retrospective moral judgements, it would be wise to consider that future generations will make the same retrospective judgements on us. Moreover such technologies affect present embryos to which we indeed can be considered to have an obligation.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2003

Can the four principles help in genetic screening decision-making?

Although principles, as a framework to resolving moral dilemmas are still debated and seem to be in a philosophical quagmire, there are strong arguments that by specification one can resolve case-specific dilemmas in certain areas of bioethics. When it comes to genetic screening and testing however, the problem at the base is a moral disagreement on higher-order principles--such as the status of the embryo and parental issues. No amount of specification can resolve these issues without a dose of relativism. We explore a possibility of agreement on debatable areas specifically in regard to genetics--such as conferring status to the embryo solely for purposes of preventing genetic selection; but it is difficult to see how this can be incorporated into law without extrapolation to other areas. We conclude therefore that the four-principles approach, albeit valuable for expounding opposing views and discussing issues, cannot either alone or by specification, help resolve issues of genetic screening and testing without agreeing on higher order principle. This does not seem to be a possibility in the near future.

Abortion, Therapeutic↗