View Full PDF

Contents

• Letter from the Editor Michael Weintraub
  
• Bioethics in Brief
  
• Interview with Dr. Sarah Tishkoff
  

Articles

• Towards a Military Medical Ethics Framework for Genetic Human Enhancement by Tony Wang Read Abstract

  Progress in genetic modification research has advanced significantly in the past decade. From somatic gene alterations to transgenic animals and crops, genetic modification will play an extremely influential role in our society in the near future. Of particular interest are the medical applications of genetic modification. The possibility of treating, or even preventing genetic disorders such as diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and color blindness, present opportunities for major breakthroughs. There is even the use of genetic modification to enhance humans past their natural physical and mental limits. Yet, despite the many positive impacts of genetic modifications, there is a lurking worry of its use for other uses that are morally contentious – such as genetic modification for military use. The present paper proposes and justifies a set of criteria regarding the ethical use of genetic modification for military purposes from a military medical point of view. The criteria themselves are not a moral framework for genetic human modification for military use but rather a set of prima facie considerations that must be fulfilled when creating such a framework. In establishing this list of ethical constraints, this paper lays a foundation of analysis that will be helpful in future development of this field of bioethics.

• Pharmaceutical Industry’s Ethical Responsibility to HIV/AIDS Sufferers in Developing Countries by Stephanie Fosbenner Read Abstract

  The AIDS pandemic represents one of the worst public health crises ever. Developing countries in particular have been ravaged by the pandemic. The development of antiretrovirals (ARVs) in the late 1980s forever altered the course of the pandemic, transforming AIDS from a death sentence into a chronic, but treatable disease. However, the introduction of ARVs sparked tension between the pharmaceutical industry and society at large, especially within developing countries. Although available, ARVs were incredibly expensive and out of the financial grasp of most sufferers in developing countries. Despite pressure from AIDS activists to reduce the prices of their ARVs for sufferers in developing countries, pharmaceutical companies argued that they required large profits to fund future research and development. This paper uses the principles of stakeholder analysis to evaluate whether the pharmaceutical industry has fulfilled its ethical responsibility to provide affordable ARVs to AIDS sufferers in developing countries. In order to act in an ethical manner, pharmaceutical companies must ensure that the burdens and benefits associated with their actions are fairly distributed amongst their various stakeholders. Thus, pharmaceutical companies must balance their financial responsibility to their stockholders with their commitments to their other stakeholders, specifically HIV/AIDs sufferers in developing countries who require but cannot afford antiretroviral drugs to survive. This paper also evaluates the impact that intellectual property rights, most notably patents, have on antiretroviral affordability in developing countries.

• Data Sharing in Rare Disease Research: The Benefits and Challenges of Open Access by Hok Khim Fam and Bernard C. Lo
• The Expressivity of Prenatal Testing and Selective Abortion for Disability by Kiersten Batzli Read Abstract

  Prenatal testing for disability is sometimes perceived by individuals with disabilities to send a message of intolerance. The expressivity of this act is compounded by the fact that prenatal diagnosis of a disability is often followed by the abortion of the fetus. Individuals with disabilities feel that these decisions are made as a rejection of the possibility of life with disability. Whether or not this message is actually sent by the action is a point of contention among prominent philosophers, bioethicists, disability scholars and activists. Adrianne Asch, Eva Feder Kittay, and James Lindemann Nelson are among those who weigh in on the subject, evaluating the likelihood that a message is sent as a result of these actions based on various theories of communication. The most common conclusion reached is that the perceived message of discrimination against people with disabilities cannot be traced to the individual women who decide to undergo prenatal testing or to abort a fetus with a disability.

For information on obtaining a hard copy of Penn Bioethics Journal Vol VI Issue i, please see our Subscription section.