ponsibilities compounds these challenges. This article presents an overview of research and standards of practice regarding children's participation in research and healthcare decisions. Further research on children's competence to participate in healthcare decisions is recommended. Reasons for and against children's increased involvement in healthcare decisions are included. There is a preponderance of support for involving children in the process, and a dearth of well-articulated reasons to exclude them....

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14.1 (2004) 97-114 [Access article in PDF] Stem Cell Research in the U.S. after the President's Speech of August 2001 Cynthia B. Cohen On 9 August 2001, in a nationally televised speech, President Bush addressed the contentious question of whether to provide federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research (White House 2001).1 This research involves taking the primordial cells found in embryos and (...) transforming them into certain specialized cells, such as those of the heart, nerves, and muscles, with the ultimate goal of transferring these cells into patients to repair damaged cells and tissues. In his remarks, the President authorized funding for research only on stem cells already harvested from remaining embryos at in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers as of 9 August 2001, the date of the speech. In a "Fact Sheet" about embryonic stem cell research, he added the ethical requirements that (1) the donors of embryos gave informed consent to the derivation of stem cells from their embryos, (2) the embryos were created solely for reproductive purposes, and (3) no financial inducements were given to the embryo donors. The President also prohibited federally funded research on embryonic stem cells derived from embryos after 9 August 2001, as well as the creation of embryos for research purposes and the cloning of human embryos for both reproductive and research purposes. He did not seek to ban the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research with private funds. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of embryos," the President stated (White House 2001).The President's speech stirred intense controversy. Many applauded the new policy because it allowed some embryonic stem cell research to proceed, thereby raising hope that treatments might be developed for those suffering from such conditions as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. Others supported it on grounds that it would discourage the future destruction of embryos in stem cell research. They maintained that although it was wrong to have derived stem cells from embryos, this wrong was no longer remediable and it therefore was justifiable to allow research using such embryos to proceed. Some, however, objected to the new policy because they held that it unduly limited the [End Page 97] number of embryonic stem cells available for federally funded research. Still others opposed it on grounds that it made the federal government complicit in what they took to be the wrongful destruction of human embryos that had taken place prior to 9 August 2001. The President established the President's Council on Bioethics by executive order in November 2001 and charged it, among other tasks, with monitoring stem cell research and recommending guidelines and regulations for biomedical innovations.Questions about the moral status of human embryos have so captured public attention since the President issued his remarks that other significant ethical and policy issues raised about stem cell research inside the Beltway have remained in the shadows. A number of individuals and organizations—legislators, scientists, patient groups, the President's Council on Bioethics, ethicists, religious task forces, and social commentators—have attempted to bring these other issues to legislative and public attention. They also have revisited the more publicly prominent question of what sorts of protections we owe to human embryos. In response, Congress has attempted to address several of these newly emerging issues at hearings and in legislation. I review these efforts, consider developing issues and arguments, and conclude by exploring possible future directions for federal and private sector stem cell policy. The Availability of Embryonic Stem Cell Lines to Federally Funded Researchers President Bush, in developing his stem cell research policy, accepted a distinction between the "derivation" and the "use" of embryos enunciated by the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services toward the end of the Clinton administration. This distinction was adopted to avoid contravening the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (added... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Future Directions for Oversight of Stem Cell Research in the United States: An UpdateMary A. Majumder (bio) and Cynthia B. Cohen (bio)On 9 March 2009, President Barack Obama (2009a) signed an executive order revoking the statement issued by President George W. Bush during a televised speech in August 2001, in which the latter had sharply restricted the scope of federally funded human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research to cell (...) lines derived (without federal funding) prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on 9 August 2001. Action by President Obama to remove the cut-off date had been expected. It came as a surprise, however, that he gave authority to determine the scope of eligible research to the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), referencing only general concerns of responsibility, scientific worth, and legality.1 This contrasted not only with the approach of former President Bush, but also with that of former President Clinton, who had expressed personal opposition to the creation of embryos for research and had a distinction between hESCs derived from embryos created for research and those derived from spare embryos enshrined in NIH policy.President Obama’s remarks upon signing the executive order give some insight into the thinking behind his approach. Implicit in them are the views that earlystage human embryos outside the womb do not have full moral status and that the destruction of human embryos in the effort to care for and ease the suffering of human beings who do have full moral status does not devalue human life. The President also stressed that the decision to pursue hESC research reflected not only his opinion, but also a broad social consensus. He concluded with strong ethical commitments on two fronts:We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.(Obama 2009b)The specific guarantee that President Obama gave against government support for the development of cloning techniques for human reproductive purposes made his silence on the use of cloning for research seem significant. Comments he had made in the course of the campaign (Obama 2008) suggested that he would affirm [End Page 195] the Clinton-era policy of limiting federal funding to hESCs derived from spare embryos. Did this silence mean that President Obama was opening the door to federal funding of research cloning when and if scientists might manage that feat?2009 NIH GuidelinesThe answer to this question and several others came on 17 April, when Raynard Kington, the acting director of NIH, released Draft NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research (NIH 2009), developed by an NIH Stem Cell Task Force, along with a request for public comment within 30 days of their publication in the Federal Register.2 The 2009 Draft Guidelines exclude from federal funding the derivation of hESCs, a restriction mandated by the reenactment of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment as part of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-8, Division F, Title V, § 509). The 2009 Draft Guidelines also exclude the use of hESCs derived from embryos created for research purposes, and so represent a refusal to open the funding door as broadly as the NIH interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment might allow, at least for the time being.It appears that the drafters used as their starting point the 2000 NIH Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells (NIH 2000) dating from the Clinton Administration, rather than more recent guidelines from the National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council 2005; 2007; 2008) and other private bodies. Both the format and content of the 2000 and 2009 NIH efforts are similar, making the departures in the latter stand out in high relief. We highlight departures related to informed consent to embryo donation, creation of human-nonhuman chimeras, and the role of an NIH task force, updating our original comment (Cohen and Majumder 2009).Informed Consent to Embryo DonationThe 2009 NIH Draft Guidelines require that certain statements... (shrink)

Монография предназначена студентам старших курсов высших учебных заведений факультета иностранных языков, аспирантам и преподавателям.

Explains the intersubjective nature of the self and the function of role taking in the development of the personal level of intersubjectivity out of primordial, pre-personal sociality or corporeal intersubjectivity of the lived body. Pragmatic philosophy of George Herbert Mead; Existential-phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty; Fundamental and pervasive rapport; More.

International health-related research on human subjects entails unique ethical responsibilities and difficulties. Often, these difficulties are augmented by the lack of a local ethical review infrastructure. In a recent cross-national study conducted by us, three critical components of ethical regulation were identified—external oversight, local oversight and subject involvement—and integrated into the study design. These three concepts are outlined and established as an important aspect of ensuring ethical coherence in the local context, particularly when reviews by the local institutional review boards (...) cannot practically be obtained. The three levels of ethical oversight identified are suggested to be the framework within which future field studies on human subjects are developed and a standard for maintaining ethical rigorousness in research on humans. (shrink)

Pid syhnaturoi︠u︡ Sofiï -- Zapyty filosofsʹkykh smysliv.

Together, Models and Computability and its sister volume Sets and Proofs will provide readers with a comprehensive guide to the current state of mathematical logic. All the authors are leaders in their fields and are drawn from the invited speakers at 'Logic Colloquium '97' (the major international meeting of the Association of Symbolic Logic). It is expected that the breadth and timeliness of these two volumes will prove an invaluable and unique resource for specialists, post-graduate researchers, and the informed and (...) interested nonspecialist. (shrink)

A new translation of the Platonic Letters, with clear and judicious discussion of their importance and individual claims to authenticity. By comparing the ideas expressed in the epistles with those in the late dialogues, Morrow provides an excellent corrective to some earlier views that the doctrines are un-Platonic because they do not square with passages in the middle period dialogues. Letters VII and VIII, the longest and most important of the collection, are shown to have excellent claims to authenticity. An (...) important and welcome addition to our English translations and editions of Plato.--R. S. B. (shrink)

Rescher examines Peirce’s view of science in terms of four major topics, each of which forms one of the four chapters of the book: the self-correctiveness of science, scientific progress and completability, the efficiency of scientific inquiry, and the economy of research. In the first chapter, Rescher defends Peirce’s position against the attack that though Peirce considers self-correctiveness a crucial aspect of scientific methodology in general, and recognizes that the inductive methodology of science includes not only quantitative but also qualitative (...) induction, yet he establishes the self-correctiveness of quantitative induction only. In his defense of Peirce, Rescher shows the way in which self-correctiveness in the sense of "performance-monitoring" proceeds by quantitative induction which, as a part of induction as a whole, functions as self-corrective for induction as a whole, while theory improvement, which, unlike quantitative induction, is neither mechanical nor automatic, is a function of scientific method in general. The chapter presents an illuminating discussion which clearly captures Peirce’s anti-reductivisitic understanding of scientific methodology as a dynamic, complex, and interlaced whole. (shrink)

A patient attempt to get the philological detail of Parmenides' poem precise, by an author who has the virtue of recognizing the inseparability of philosophical considerations and philological technique. The conclusion is offered that the Eleatics were dualists almost in a Platonic sense, but with no causal connection between "being " and phenomena; thus there is no contradiction between the two parts of Parmenides' poem, and a strong historical affinity between Eleaticism and Plato's dualism. There is not quite enough precision (...) nor imagination in the philosophical dimension proper to make this study entirely definitive; but it offers an interesting approach, with a suggestive outcome.--R. S. B. (shrink)

A first-rate speculative interpretation. Wyller's sympathies are with the Neo-Platonic tradition, supplemented by insights from Heidegger. His study, however, extends to details of the Parmenides architectonic, and establishes significant parallels of structure between its form and that of other dialogues. It is a work that all students of the Parmenides should examine.--R. S. B.