Asmat Islam

Abstract. Global bioethics governance is a necessity in the era of globalization, yet the research on this issue is inadequate and underdeveloped. This research project argues that introducing global bioethics governance may deal effectively with the health crisis of migrants. Since immigrants are the minority in a new country, thus, one of the moral questions regarding this issue reflects on how to ensure health justice for this population. Health crisis issues arise in a multicultural society, which is often problematic to deal with from a pluralistic standpoint. Unlike traditional ethics, bioethics demands taking action, thus, developing global bioethics governance should be addressed seriously to combat the health crisis of immigrants and climate migrants.

Predatory journals offer the promise of prompt publication to those willing to pay the article submission or processing fee. However, these journals do not offer rigorous peer review. Studies have shown that a substantial share of corresponding authors in predatory journals come from South Asia, particularly India. This scoping review aims to assess what is known about the reasons why healthcare researchers working in South Asia publish in predatory journals. 66 reports (14 editorials, 20 letters, 5 research reports, 10 opinion articles, 14 reviews, 2 commentaries and 1 news report) were included in the data charting and analysis. The analysis of the reports identified three main reasons that made South Asian healthcare researchers publish in predatory journals: pressure to publish, lack of research support, and pseudo benefits. The review shows that predatory publishing in South Asia is a complex phenomenon. Combating predatory publications requires a holistic strategy that supersedes merely blacklisting these journals or listing criteria for journals that do meet academic standards.

This paper argues that contemporary medicalization is one of the reasons why death and dying should be considered as ethical issues. First, two distinct features regarding death and dying can be analysed by comparing ‘tamed death’ and ‘death untamed’. The distinction between death in Ars Moriendi and death as deprivationism has been compared before deducing a conclusion that biomedical ethics is an indispensable tool today to deal with the morality of death and dying. This issue is significant to articulate the relationship between the ethics of death and dying and the historical and cultural understanding of death and dying.

Abstract. Environmental ethicists ask several questions about global climate change; especially on the moral justification of the problem of non-compliance; i.e., why agents do not comply with their climatic responsibilities. It is evident that some developed countries have been perpetuating the climate change crisis by not following their climatic responsibilities (i.e., mitigation, adaptation, and compensation) or even more surprisingly a few of those states have been denying the climate change facts. This paper focuses on comparing two forward-looking approaches to climate justice; namely, the Ability to Pay Principle (APP) and the Power/Responsibility Principle (PRP) and seeks an answer whether any of these principles enable a response to the problem of non-compliance. Scrutinizing a few analogical examples and analysing contemporary debates on this issue, this paper then shows the APP does not enable a response to the problem of non-compliance whereas one possible distribution of duties according to the PRP does so and concludes that the relevant agents’ willingness to comply with climatic responsibilities seems to be the key factor to avoid harm in the context of climate change crisis.

Although Theravada Buddhism and Roman Catholicism agree on the moral justification for palliative sedation, they differ on the premises underlying the justification. While Catholicism justifies palliative sedation on the ground of the Principle of Double Effect, Buddhism does so on the basis of the Third Noble Truth. Despite their theological differences, Buddhism and Catholicism both value the moral significance of the physician’s intent to reduce suffering and both respect the sanctity of life. This blurs the demarcation line between Buddhism and Catholicism regarding the moral justification of palliative sedation.