Matching Items (25)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: bioethics
- Creators: School of Life Sciences
- Creators: Maienschein, Jane
Description
This thesis explores concept of "global bioethics" in both its development as well as its current state in an effort to understand exactly where it fits into the larger field of bioethics. Further, the analysis poses specific questions regarding what it may contribute to this field and related fields, and the possibility and scope associated with the continued development of global bioethics as its own discipline. To achieve this, the piece addresses questions regarding current opinions on the subject, the authorities and their associated publications related to global bioethics, and what the aims of the subject should be given its current state. "Global Bioethics" is a term that, while seen frequently in bioethics literature, is difficult to define succinctly. While many opinions are provided on the concept, little consensus exists regarding its application and possible contributions and, in some cases, even its very possibility. Applying ethical principles of health and medicine globally is undoubtedly complicated by the cultural, social, and geographical considerations associated with understanding health and medicine in different populations, leading to a dichotomy between two schools of thought in relation to global bioethics. These two sides consist of those who think that universality of bioethics is possible whereas the opposing viewpoint holds that relativism is the key to applying ethics on a global scale. Despite the aforementioned dichotomy in addressing applications of global bioethics, this analysis shows that the goals of the subject should be more focused on contributing to ethical frameworks and valuable types of thinking related to the ethics health and medicine on a global scale. This is achieved through an exploration of bioethics in general, health as a function of society and culture, the history and development of global bioethics itself, and an exploration of pertinent global health topics. While primarily descriptive in nature, this analysis critiques some of the current discussions and purported goals surrounding global bioethics, recommending that the field focus on fostering valuable discussion and framing of issues rather than the pursuit of concrete judgments on moral issues in global health and medicine.
ContributorsRuffenach, Stephen Charles (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Hruschka, Daniel J (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
This thesis responds to the question, "Can Science Make Sense of Life?" through a structural lens of the Human Germline Genetic Editing debate. I explore who is absent from the table, and how the ways of thinking that dominate marginalize and exclude alternative frameworks and considerations. This analysis is centered around an examination of several perspectives from the disability community and an in-depth study of how the Orthodox Jewish community contends with genetic disease. These perspectives illuminate several lessons that prove to bring insight not merely to questions of permissibility on genetic editing, but also offer reflections on the larger relationship between science, technology, and society. I then return to the mainstream genetic editing debate to show how the culture it is born out of and the structures it has ingrained prevent lessons such as these from impacting the conversation. In light of such structures that continuously reproduce the assertion that it is science, not humanity, that is able to make sense of life, my final argument is that though science tends to gatekeep questions of emerging technologies by centering conversations on highly advanced and methodological considerations, public individuals need not feel as if they are irrelevant or unessential. Though science may offer one solution, it is the individuals and communities, not results from a lab, that are equipped to determine if it is the best solution.
ContributorsAsher, Michaela Elyse (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava (Committee member) / School of Human Evolution & Social Change (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
Lung Cancer Alliance, a nonprofit organization, released the "No One Deserves to Die" advertising campaign in June 2012. The campaign visuals presented a clean, simple message to the public: the stigma associated with lung cancer drives marginalization of lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer Alliance (LCA) asserts that negative public attitude toward lung cancer stems from unacknowledged moral judgments that generate 'stigma.' The campaign materials are meant to expose and challenge these common public category-making processes that occur when subconsciously evaluating lung cancer patients. These processes involve comparison, perception of difference, and exclusion. The campaign implies that society sees suffering of lung cancer patients as indicative of moral failure, thus, not warranting assistance from society, which leads to marginalization of the diseased. Attributing to society a morally laden view of the disease, the campaign extends this view to its logical end and makes it explicit: lung cancer patients no longer deserve to live because they themselves caused the disease (by smoking). This judgment and resulting marginalization is, according to LCA, evident in the ways lung cancer patients are marginalized relative to other diseases via minimal research funding, high- mortality rates and low awareness of the disease. Therefore, society commits an injustice against those with lung cancer. This research analyzes the relationship between disease, identity-making, and responsibilities within society as represented by this stigma framework. LCA asserts that society understands lung cancer in terms of stigma, and advocates that society's understanding of lung cancer should be shifted from a stigma framework toward a medical framework. Analysis of identity-making and responsibility encoded in both frameworks contributes to evaluation of the significance of reframing this disease. One aim of this thesis is to explore the relationship between these frameworks in medical sociology. The results show a complex interaction that suggest trading one frame for another will not destigmatize the lung cancer patient. Those interactions cause tangible harms, such as high mortality rates, and there are important implications for other communities that experience a stigmatized disease.
ContributorsCalvelage, Victoria (Author) / Hurlbut, J. Benjamin (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Corporations in biomedicine hold significant power and influence, in both political and personal spheres. The decisions these companies make about ethics are critically important, as they help determine what products are developed, how they are developed, how they are promoted, and potentially even how they are regulated. In the last fifteen years, for-profit private companies have been assembling bioethics committees to help resolve dilemmas that require informed deliberation about ethical, legal, scientific, and economic considerations. Private sector bioethics committees represent an important innovation in the governance of emerging technologies, with corporations taking a lead role in deciding what is ethically appropriate or problematic. And yet, we know very little about these committees, including their structures, memberships, mandates, authority, and impact. Drawing on an extensive literature review and qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with executives, scientists and board members, this dissertation provides an in-depth analysis of the Ethics and Public Policy Board at SmithKline Beecham, the Ethics Advisory Board at Advanced Cell Technology, and the Bioethics Committee at Eli Lilly and offers insights about how ideas of bioethics and governance are currently imagined and enacted within corporations. The SmithKline Beecham board was the first private sector bioethics committee; its mandate was to explore, in a comprehensive and balanced analysis, the ethics of macro trends in science and technology. The Advanced Cell Technology board was created to be like a watchdog for the company, to prevent them from making major errors. The Eli Lilly board is different than the others in that it is made up mostly of internal employees and does research ethics consultations within the company. These private sector bioethics committees evaluate and construct new boundaries between their private interests and the public values they claim to promote. Findings from this dissertation show that criticisms of private sector bioethics that focus narrowly on financial conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency obscure analysis of the ideas about governance (about expertise, credibility and authority) that emerge from these structures and hamper serious debate about the possible impacts of moving ethical deliberation from the public to the private sector.
ContributorsBrian, Jennifer (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Hurlbut, James B (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Brown, Mark B. (Committee member) / Moreno, Jonathan D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Abortion is a highly controversial procedure, and it has divided the country into two factions: pro-life and pro-choice. This intense debate is marred by anger through protests and violent actions against supporters of abortion. With all of the tension surrounding the moral significance of the abortion issue, the question arises: How did specific figureheads, events, and contributing factors lead to the generation of the stigma and polarization surrounding the dichotomy of pro-life versus pro-choice abortion stances in the United States of America?
ContributorsAbdi-Moradi, Sepehr (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis director) / O'Neil, Erica (Committee member) / Abboud, Alexis (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
In 2004, the South Korean geneticist Woo-Suk Hwang published what was widely regarded as the most important research result in biotechnology of the year. In the prestigious American journal Science, he claimed that he had succeeded in cloning a human blastocyst, an embryo in its early stages (Hwang et al. 2004). A year later, in a second Science article, he made the earth-shattering announcement that he had derived eleven embryonic stem cell lines using his cloning technique (Hwang et al. 2005). The international scientific community was stunned. American scientists publicly fretted that President George W. Bush‘s 2001 executive order limiting federal funding for stem-cell research in the United States had put American bioscience behind the Koreans‘ (Paarlberg 2005). These breakthroughs offered potential solutions to immune system rejection of transplanted organs and possible cures for diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson‘s, Down‘s syndrome, and paralysis (Svenaeus 2007). However, within a year, Hwang was exposed as a fraud who had faked his results and pressured his female colleagues to donate eggs without informed consent. Despite protests against his methods from Korean religious and nongovernmental organizations, Hwang had used his prestige to ignore his ethical obligations. The Korean government, too, was slow to investigate Hwang and to subject his work to appropriate regulation.
ContributorsClay, Anne (Author) / Hurlbut, James (Thesis director) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Marchant, Gary (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2012-12
Description
Human genetic engineering, the manipulation of genomic DNA, is an up and coming field in which soon we will no longer be asking if we can do it, but should we do it? It raises ethical questions regarding autonomy, the concept that an individual is capable of self-governance and making informed decisions, as well as consent of those who undergo genetic manipulation. Along with the ethical questions come issues of equality, equal opportunity of usage, and responsibility of those who use such technologies. The benefits and consequences of genetically engineering humans must be examined, such as the eradication of genetic diseases and the ability to alter ourselves as we desire, as well as the possible unintended outcomes, such as a two-class society and insurmountable inequality. Eugenics and the Transhumanism movement will also be examined, and how they could affect genetic engineering. Regulations will be needed, to limit parents on how they can modify their children and on how adults can modify themselves, to ensure the safe future of genetic engineering.
ContributorsThompson, Carlie Jane (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason Scott (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2013-12
Description
Mr. Green has stage 4 prostate cancer which has spread to the bones and liver and has become resistant to radiation and standard chemotherapy treatment. After 3 rounds of chemotherapy, his primary oncologist recommends that he participate in a clinical trial. He went to Dr. Red at the Saguaro Clinic after reading on the internet about a new Phase 1 clinical trial that the clinic is hosting, which is designed to target a specific receptor called AB-111 that may be present in malignant prostate, cervical, ovarian, and breast cells. After signing consent and completing the blood screens in the morning at the clinic, Mr. Green is told his liver enzymes are too high and the ranges specified in the protocol prohibit him from enrolling. Mr. Green is noticeably affected and distressed at this news, and Dr. Red recommends end-of-life care. Behind the scenes, this event is noted on official medical documents and trial study rosters as a "screen fail." This narrative, while fictional, is realistic because similar events occur in cancer clinical trial sites on a regular basis. I look at the inner "world" and mental journey of possible clinical trial candidates as they seek out information about clinical trials and gain understanding of their function \u2014 specifically in the context of Phase 1 cancer clinical trials. To whom is the language of the term "screen failure" useful? How does excluding individuals from clinical trials protect their health and does the integrity of the trial data supersede the person's curative goals? What is the message that cancer patients (potential research subjects) receive regarding clinical trials from sources outside their oncologists?
ContributorsMcKane, Alexandra (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis director) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Foy, Joseph (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2013-12
Visualizing the Embryo: Establishing Procedures for Digital image Production with the Embryo Project
Description
The Embryo Project (EP) Encyclopedia is an online database that has consolidated hundreds of development-related research articles, with subcategories addressing the context of such research. These articles are written by undergraduate students, graduate students, and professionals in the fields of biology, history, and other fields, and are intended for a diverse audience of readers from both biology and non-biology related backgrounds. As the EP addresses a public audience, it is imperative to utilize all possible means to share the information that each article covers. Until 2013, the EP Encyclopedia did not present images in articles as no formal protocol for image development existed. I have created an image style guide that outlines the basic steps of creating and submitting an image that can complement an EP article and can enhance a reader's understanding of the discussed concept. In creating this style guide, I investigated similar protocols used by other scientific journals and medical professionals. I also used different programs and based my style guide off of the procedures I used in Adobe Illustrator CS6.
ContributorsHamidi, Neekta (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis director) / Crowe, Nathan (Committee member) / O'Neil, Erica (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor)
Created2013-05
Description
This thesis explores how we can harness new technology to improve our relationship with companion animals and promote shelter animal welfare. The study looked into using the photo-sharing application Instagram to increase adoption rates at the Arizona Animal Welfare League & SPCA. An Instagram page was created and managed for the shelter, and data was collected regarding the impact the page had on adoption rates. The results were mixed, but overall it was determined that the Instagram page has unique value for the shelter.
ContributorsBautista-Hobin, Elena Maria (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis director) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Morefield, Michael (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2015-05