Baruch Brody

(1943 - 2018)

It seems to me that those who place great value on the right to human freedom can be badly divided on the question of the use of force by states to defend the liberties of those who are not citizens of that particular state. Concerned about the liberties to be defended, they might be enthusiastic supporters of the use of such force by liberty-loving countries throughout the world. Concerned about the liberties that might be violated when the state marshals its forces for use internationally, they might adopt a more isolationist approach to this issue. This paper is an attempt to help clarify this conflict by looking at some of the philosophical issues it raises. Because I wish to avoid factual debates about current conflicts, I will give no real-life examples. However, they are on my mind, and I hope the reader will keep them in mind as well.

A traditional ethic of medicine asserts that physicians have special obligations to individual patients with whom they have a clinical relationship. Contemporary trends in US healthcare financing like bundled payments seem to threaten traditional conceptions of special obligations of individual physicians to individual patients because their population-based focus sets a tone that seems to emphasise responsibilities for groups of patients by groups of physicians in an organisation. Prior to undertaking a cogent debate about the fate and normative weight of special obligations and a traditional ethic for contemporary healthcare, we need a deeper examination of what the traditional ethic of special obligations really means. Here we offer a conception of ‘doubly distributed’ special obligations. Physicians and similarly minded healing professionals abiding by a traditional ethic have always spread their devotion and attention across multiple patients and have shared responsibilities with physician and non-physician colleagues in much the same way devoted parents have frequently distributed their special obligations across multiple children and across multiple parents. By taking up the extended analogy of parent we argue that doubly distributing special obligations need not contradict the possibility of special obligations in restructured collective forms of healthcare delivery and financing.

This paper argues, contrary to what has sometimes been claimed, that public commissions need to be more philosophical than they have been in analyzing crucial bioethical issues. It argues (a) that the failure of the President's Commission to develop and use even simple distinctions between life and personhood led to flaws in both its discussion of death and its discussion of persistent vegetative patients, and (b) that its treatment of access to health care fails to develop a coherent approach precisely because it is based on no serious philosophical reflections about justice in health care. Keywords: justice in health care, life, persistent vegetative patients, personhood, President's Commission on Bioethics CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

Until a few years ago, the works of Thomas Reid were known only by specialists in the history of philosophy, and, insofar as people did think at all about Reid and his school of common sense philosophy, it was generally thought that Kant had been right in dismissing them as naive thinkers who did not really understand what philosophical skepticism was all about. This attitude about Reid changed very rapidly in recent years. More and more people now realize that Reid was one of the most important British philosophers, and that his works are full of deep insights that have only recently been rediscovered.

This essay challenges the view that the provision of health care must take place within a competitive-free system. The author argues that, presuming that there is a requirement to meet the demands of those who cannot pay for health care, a competitive market provides a good way to deal with injustices within the health care system. The author concludes that the demands for justice are best met when indigent individuals use some portion of the funds they receive from the government to purchase one of the many competing forms of health care. This scheme requires a competitive market in the delivery of health care.

There is a growing interest in comparison of international health care data with the hope that such studies will enable individual systems to learn from other systems. Such comparisons, however, presuppose that there exist common criteria for evaluating health care systems. The main thesis of this paper is that these comparative studies are misleading because they employ inappropriate operationalizations of these criteria because the operarionalizations are based upon mistaken global conceptualizations of the criteria in question. The essay provides a methodological critique of what has been done and sets a new agenda for future research

Empirical research can aid ethical reflection in bioethics by identifying issues, by seeing how they are currently resolved, and by assessing the consequences of these current resolutions. This potential can be misused when the ethical issues in question are fundamentally non-consequentialist or when they are consequentialist but the empirical research fails to address the important consequences. An example of the former problem is some recent studies about bad consequences resulting from commercialized living kidney donor programs. These consequences could be avoided, but the crucial non-consequentialist ethical issues about exploitation and commercialization would still remain. Examples of the latter problem are provided by recent studies of the allocation of ICU beds and of physician deception, where important consequences were not adequately studied.

In this paper questions are raised about the use of Halakhic material discussions of medical ethics. Three ways in which one might use Halakhic material in such discussions are distinguishes: (a) as a source for ideas about medical ethics which can be defended independently of their origin; (b) as a basis for mandating certain forms of behaviour for members of the Jewish faith; (c) as the basis for claims about the Jewish view on disputed topics in medical ethics. The first two raise no methodical problems. The third use raises a number of theoretical and practical issues, with which the paper is concerned. Several problems stem from the fact that Halakhah distinguishes between obligations, fulfilment of which is required for all people. With rare exceptions, the obligations imposed up on the Jewish people are more stringent. The pitfall lurking the in third of the three uses is that authors using Halakhic material may correctly conclude that obligations that are supposed to fall only upon the Jewish people fall upon all people. An analysis of this problem follows, along with a plea for a responsible use of Halakhic material in the third way, so as to avoid certain real pitfalls. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

BACKGROUND: Many published accounts of clinical trials report no differences between the treatment arms, while being underpowered to find differences. This study determined how the authors of these reports interpreted their findings. STUDY DESIGN: We examined 54 reports of surgical trials chosen randomly from a database of 110 influential trials conducted in 2008. Seven that reported having adequate statistical power were excluded from further analysis, as were the 32 that reported significant differences between the treatment arms. We examined the remaining 15 to see whether the authors interpreted their negative findings appropriately. Appropriate interpretations discussed the lack of power and/or called for larger studies. RESULTS: Three of the 7 trials that did not report an a priori power calculation offered inappropriate interpretations, as did 3 of the 8 trials that reported an a priori power < 0.90. However, we examined only a modest number of trial reports from 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Negative findings in underpowered trials were often interpreted as showing the equivalence of the treatment arms with no discussion of the issue of being underpowered. This may lead clinicians to accept new treatments that have not been validated.