Volume 24, Issue 10, October 2024, Page 110-112.

Volume 24, Issue 12, December 2024, Page 32-34.

The Hastings Center was founded in 1969 to study ethical problems in medicine and biology. The Center arose from a confluence of three social currents: the increased public scrutiny of medicine and its practices, the concern about the moral problems being generated by technological developments, and the desire of one of its founders (Callahan) to make use of his philosophical training in a more applied way. The early years of the Center were devoted to raising money, (...) developing an early agenda of issues, and identifying a cadre of people around the country interested in the issues. Various stresses and strains in the Center and the field are identified, and some final reflections are offered on the nature and value of the contributions made by bioethics as an academic field. (shrink)

The Hasting Center's, "Guidelines on the Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Care of the Dying" (1987), outlines a position on assisted suicide that I argue is contradictory. On one hand the guidelines offers a position on human dignity and autonomy that accords competent patients the right to intentionally kill themselves by requesting doctors to terminate life-support. Yet, on the other hand, the guidelines argue that terminating life-support upon request is not ever the moral equivalent of doctored-assisted suicide, and (...) granting the right to the former does not grant a right to the latter. In this paper I argue that in some circumstances a right to obligate your doctor to pull the plug on life-support is morally equivalent to the right to obligate your doctor to assist you in dying by more direct means, e.g. administering a lethal dose of medication. If the fundamental values of autonomy, self-determination, and human dignity justify this right in the one case, they eo ipso justify this right in the other. Both circumstances are subject to the same potential abuse, so citing such potential abuse does not defeat granting an autonomy right in either case. (shrink)

In 1932 the US Public Health Service (USPHS) initiated an experiment in Macon County, Alabama, to determine the natural course of untreated, latent syphilis in black males. The test comprised 400 syphilitic men, as well as 200 unin- fected men who served as controls. ..

Book reviewed in this article: In That Case: Medical Ethics in Everyday Practice. By Alastair Campbell and Roger Higgs. Medical Genetics Casebook: A Clinical Introduction to Medical Ethics Systems Theory. By Colleen D. Clements. Cases in Bioethics from the Hastings Center Report. Edited by Carol Levine and Robert M. Veatch. Hastings‐on‐Hudson.

The following article is a response to the position paper of the Hastings Center, “Ethical Challenges of Chronic Illness”, a product of their three year project on Ethics and Chronic Care. The authors of this paper, three prominent bioethicists, Daniel Callahan, Arthur Caplan, and Bruce Jennings, argue that there should be a different ethic for acute and chronic care. In pressing this distinction they provide philosophical grounds for limiting medical care for the elderly and chronically ill. We give (...) a critical survey of their position and reject it as well as any attempt to characterize the physician-patient relationship as a commercial contract. We emphasize, as central features of good medical practice, a commitment to be the patient's agent and a determination to acquire and be guided by knowledge. These commitments may sometimes conflict with efforts to have the physician serve as an instrument of social and economic policies limiting medical care. (shrink)

The following article is a response to the position paper of the Hastings Center, "Ethical Challenges of Chronic Illness", a product of their three year project on Ethics and Chronic Care. The authors of this paper, three prominent bioethicists, Daniel Callahan, Arthur Caplan, and Bruce Jennings, argue that there should be a different ethic for acute and chronic care. In pressing this distinction they provide philosophical grounds for limiting medical care for the elderly and chronically ill. We give (...) a critical survey of their position and reject it as well as any attempt to characterize the physician-patient relationship as a commercial contract. We emphasize, as central features of good medical practice, a commitment to be the patient's agent and a determination to acquire and be guided by knowledge. These commitments may sometimes conflict with efforts to have the physician serve as an instrument of social and economic policies limiting medical care. Keywords: acute, agent, autonomy, chronic, knowledge, obligations, rights CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Life Choices is the second edition of a collection of “some of the very best articles published in the Hastings Center Report over the last 28 years”. The collection has two main aims: to provide a challenging text for classrooms and to serve as a testimony to the achievements of the Hastings Center. The first edition was published in 1994 to mark the 25th anniversary of the Hastings Center's foundation. The Hastings Center, (...) based in New York state, is the oldest independent, non-partisan interdisciplinary research institute of its kind in the world and has become a highly influential organisation. The center's mission is the study of the moral problems that arise out of the rapid advances in medicine and biology, and collaboration with policy makers, both in the private and public sphere, to aid the analysis of the ethical dimension of their work. The collection is organised around themes which reflect the center's research …. (shrink)

The 1994 edition is here enlarged with new sections on the goals and allocation of medicine and human cloning. There is no index.

In 1937 Joseph Grinnell founded the University of California’s first biological field station, the Hastings Natural History Reservation. Hastings became a center for field biology on the West Coast, and by 1960 it was serving as a model for the creation of additional U.C. reserves. Today, the U.C. Natural Reserve System is the largest and most diverse network of university-based biological field stations in the world, with 36 sites covering more than 135,000 acres. This essay examines the (...) founding of the Hastings Reservation, and asks how it managed to grow and develop, in the 1940s and 1950s, during a time of declining support for natural history research. It shows how faculty and staff courted the support of key institutional allies, presented themselves as the guardians of a venerable tradition in nature study, and emphasized the station’s capacity to document ecological change and inform environmental policy and management. In the years since, Hastings and other U.C. reserves have played crucial roles in California environmental politics. Biological field stations in the post-war era deserve more attention not only from historians of biology, but also from environmental historians and other scholars interested in the role of science in society. (shrink)

Seeking useful ways to respond to the Covid‐19 pandemic, bioethicists have been tempted to claim for themselves what Alasdair MacIntyre characterized in After Virtue as the moral fiction of managerial expertise. They have been eager to offer a wide range of policy prescriptions, presenting themselves as bureaucratic managers and suggesting an expertise that bioethics may not in fact be able to offer. This was evident, for example, in the petition published by The Hastings Center in March 2020. The (...) pandemic could foster a more hopeful future for bioethics if it were to focus attention less on policy decisions that belong to all citizens and more on some of the most basic moral questions that life presents and with which bioethics has always dealt—including, surely, the virtues needed in order to live well in a time of pandemic. (shrink)

In my time at The Hastings Center, the projects I've worked on have intersected in fascinating ways, but one through line has impressed me as especially important: centering the experiences and needs of people and communities most affected by the issue at hand.

Taking as its starting point a recent statement of the Goals of Medicine published by the Hastings Centre, this paper argues against the dualistic distinction between pain and suffering. It uses an Aristotelian conception of the person to suggest that malady, pain, and disablement are objective forms of suffering not dependent upon any state of consciousness of the victim. As a result, medicine effectively relieves suffering when it cures malady and relieves pain. There is no medical mission to confront (...) the spiritual condition of the patient. (shrink)

Prompted by a 2019 essay by Jonathan Moreno in the Hastings Center Report, the Center's board of directors undertook a careful examination of the name of its preeiminent award, the Henry Knowles Beecher Award, which has been given to twenty‐nine individuals who have made lifetime contributions to bioethics. citing new research that revealed that Beecher's earlier experimentation on drugs had involved nonconsenting adults, Moreno urged the Center to reevaluate honoring Beecher through this award. After reviewing the (...) relevant published evidence and holding extensive discussions, the board decided to rename the award. We also took the opportunity to reframe the award to emphasize quality of scholarship and impact on thinking, practice, and policy rather than lifetime achievement. The new name—the Founders’ Award of The Hastings Center—reflects our desire to honor not only the Center's cofounders, Daniel Callahan and Willard Gaylin, but also others who helped found the field of bioethics. With great pride, the Center has announced that Patricia King of the Georgetown University Law Center is the 2021 recipient of the Founders’ Award. A distinguished civil rights lawyer, King was instrumental in ensuring justice as one of the three principles of The Belmont Report. (shrink)

In a project The Hastings Center is now running on the future of prenatal testing, we are encountering clear examples, both in established law and in the practices of individual providers, of failures to respect women's reproductive autonomy: when testing is not offered to certain demographics of women, for instance, or when the choices of women to terminate or continue pregnancies are prohibited or otherwise not supported. But this project also raises puzzles for reproductive autonomy. We have learned (...) that some clinicians and patients do not discuss the fact that prenatal testing can lead to a decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy—they just don't talk about it. And while the decision whether to agree to prenatal screening and diagnostic testing is to be made with women's free and informed consent, many screening tests have been routinized in such a way that some women do not even recall agreeing to testing, while others feel that agreeing to testing is what their clinicians expect of them or that the testing is necessary to protect themselves and their families from the significant financial hardship of raising a child with a disability. In the face of these pressures, can one really say that women are freely choosing to undergo testing or are freely choosing to continue or terminate a pregnancy following receipt of test results? The reality of these pressures is requiring us to consider expanding the scope of our investigation beyond the clinical encounter to the broader context—to think harder about what reproductive autonomy means and how best to enhance it. (shrink)

"--Daniel Callahan, cofounder of the Hastings Center "Doctors and people who have no choice but to trust doctors--which means all of us--need to read this book.

This article highlights the continuing relevance of a classic bioethical text, “Bioethics as a Discipline,” published by the Hastings Center’s cofounder Daniel Callahan in 1973. Connecting the text’s programmatic recommendations with later reflections and interventions Callahan wrote about the development of bioethics illuminates how the vision Callahan established and the reality this vision helped create were interrelated—just not in the way Callahan had hoped for. Although this portrait relies on an individual perception of the development of bioethics, it (...) might nevertheless, through its unique linkage of different bioethical temporalities, contribute to a broader reassessment of what bioethics became and why. (shrink)

The Hastings Center addresses fundamental ethical issues in the areas of health, medicine, and the environment as they affect individuals, communities, and societies. With a small staff of senior researchers at the Center and drawing upon national and international experts, The Hastings Center pursues interdisciplinary research and education that includes both theory and practice. Founded in 1969 by philosopher Daniel Callahan and psychoanalyst Willard Gaylin, The Hastings Center is the oldest independent, nonpartisan, interdisciplinary (...) research institute of its kind in the world. From its earliest days The Hastings Center has understood that the moral problems arising from rapid advances in medicine and biology are set within a broad intellectual and social context. The Center's collaborations with policy-makers, in the private as well as the public sphere, assist them in analyzing the ethical dimensions of their work. (shrink)

The Hastings Center's chief advancement officer describes values and intellectual interests that undergird his work. “My job is itself collaborative in spirit,” Sauder writes. “My primary responsibility is to identify and build connections with a wide variety of people who value ethical decision‐making at the crossroads of health, science, and technology.”.

In 2019, The Hastings Center will celebrate its fiftieth anniversary. It is more than a bit staggering to think how far we have come since 1969. When I floated the idea of a center on bioethics to my friend and neighbor, psychiatrist Willard Gaylin, at a Christmas party in 1968—even before the word “bioethics” was used—I had only the fuzziest idea of where that would take us. Neither Will nor I had run anything, nor did we know (...) how to raise money to support an organization. We would and did learn how, but much of what we did in those early years was made up on the fly. We not only had to invent an organization but no less to invent a field of research and education on issues still little noticed by the public or academics. Out of curiosity, I recently googled “bioethics.” I was astonished at what I found and by the sheer quantity of what is going on. (shrink)

In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Danielle Wenner looks at a few prominent analyses of the social value requirement for clinical research, claiming that they are all based on what she calls a transactional model of research ethics. She argues that the transactional model fails to provide a secure foundation for the social value requirement, and then, appealing to John Rawls, she argues that a more secure foundation lies in the principles of social justice. Wenner's attempt (...) to locate the source of the social value requirement raises important questions regarding its scope and strength. To determine what the social value requirement requires, we need to know why it's a requirement. Does the social value requirement apply to all trials or only to a subset? Is it a necessary condition on ethical research or an important consideration that can conflict with, and sometimes be defeated by, other considerations? Wenner's attempt to answer these questions is obscured by the fact that she mistakenly regards a minority view of research ethics as the mainstream view. Once we correct for that, her analysis of the foundation of the social value requirement provides a valuable opportunity to consider how the ethics of research as an institution might supplement or alter the ethics of individual clinical trials. (shrink)

In Tyranny of the Gene: Personalized Medicine and Its Threat to Public Health (Knopf, 2023), James Tabery traces the ascendance of personalized or precision medicine in America, arguing that America's emphasis on genetics offers more hype than transformational power. In his examination of the power struggles, social relationships, and technological advances that centered the gene in American health policy, Tabery demonstrates how an intensive focus on genetics draws attention away from both the fundamental causes of health disparities and more‐effective changes (...) that could be made to developmental, physical, and social environments. American policy‐makers, health care institutions, funders, and bioethicists should not let the technological shine and attractive politics of personalized medicine continue to replace the hard but necessary work of addressing sociopolitical causes of disease and illness. (shrink)

A special report of The Hastings Center and the Association of American Medical Colleges addressed the ethical oversight of learning health systems, which seek to combine high‐quality patient care with routine data collection aimed at improving patient outcomes. The report contained two position papers, authored by a number of distinguished bioethicists, and several commentaries. The position papers urged two changes. First, they urged a rethinking of our approach to the regulation of human subjects research, so as to make (...) it easier in the future for learning health systems to function well. Second, they argued that the rethinking required dispensing with a strict distinction between research and therapy, which has been a major tenet of bioethics since the Belmont Report, which explicated basic ethical principles governing human subjects research. We fully support the objectives of the authors, and we agree that the learning health system is an important advance that serves patients well. Unnecessary regulatory burden ought not impede this progress. We disagree, however, that the best way to bring about these needed changes in the regulatory environment is to reject the basic distinction between research and treatment. Unfortunately, we find the arguments in favor of that strategy to be, in places, reminiscent of what we take to be basic conceptual errors that hampered the ethical understanding of human subjects research prior to adoption of the Belmont Report. To see why one need not reject the research‐treatment distinction in order to promote learning health systems, we first investigate in some detail the arguments offered for eliminating the distinction. We next turn to an issue not addressed by those authors, namely, the relationship between the physician or investigator and the patient or subject, to illustrate why the distinction is important and what is lost if it is jettisoned. (shrink)

I joined The Hastings Center this past summer, after graduating from Duke University, where I researched advancements in neuroscience and genomics and their import for law, ethics, and policy. This research required, to an extent, faith in the idea that researchers can identify pathways by which genes combine with epigenetic and environmental factors to affect neuronal activity and influence behaviors. Throughout my first months here, I have puzzled over broad critiques of “genomic hype” in recent literature, which clash (...) with the optimistic rhetoric found in the Human Genome Project and the Precision Medicine Initiative. (shrink)

The U.S. federal government provides two tracks for eligible patients to obtain access outside clinical trials to investigational interventions currently under study for potential clinical benefits: the Food and Drug Administration’s expanded access pathway and the pathway created by the more recent Right to Try Act. In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, with a critical focus on patients, industry, and the research enterprise, Kelly Folkers and colleagues frame the inherent challenges that these pathways are meant to (...) solve and have also inadvertently created. But an additional key focus is how the relevant situations should be managed at the bedside and how the system risks both inefficient and inequitable access to options at the institutional level. Although either pathway could be helpful to patients, the challenges of having the pathways coexist are greater than the sum of their parts. Individual clinicians represent the front line of the regulatory and eligibility challenges of expanded access and right to try, making clinical education a critical component of a comprehensive approach to using them well. But it is medical institutions that must take the lead on supporting access to investigational options in the most equitable and effective manner possible. (shrink)

In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Joshua Rager and Peter Schwartz reframe the justification for the use of opioid treatment agreements. Instead of documents used to define the roles and responsibilities of doctors and patients to one another in the course of opioid treatment for chronic pain and to describe the risks and benefits of therapy for the individual, OTAs are now proposed for use as “surveillance and monitoring” instruments. As such, they are specifically meant to (...) disclose the risks of opioid therapy and to describe the other processes and tools used to monitor abuse and diversion of medications. Given the crisis of the opioid overdose and death epidemic, along with this repurposing of OTAs as disclosure documents primarily, Rager and Schwartz argue that patient consent is not needed and that OTAs should be universally applied in clinical practices. We can all agree on the big picture goal of limiting the number of opioid prescriptions in order to minimize the tragedy of opioid overdose deaths. We disagree, though, about the acceptable level of collateral damage to people in pain who fall victim to fighting the war against the so-called opioid epidemic. (shrink)

In 1976, The Hastings Center convened a conference to examine the validity of proposed parallels between Nazi and contemporary biomedical practices in moral argument. Charges that current medical and social practices and policies are analogous to or are the moral equivalent of Nazi programs are again in the air, and in this new feature of the Report, four commentators display and critique the use of this analogy.

From predicting medical conditions to administering health behavior interventions, artificial intelligence technologies are being developed to enhance patient care and outcomes. However, as Mélanie Terrasse and coauthors caution in an article in this issue of the Hastings Center Report, an overreliance on virtual technologies may depersonalize medical interactions and erode therapeutic relationships. The increasing expectation that patients will be actively engaged in their own care, regardless of the patients’ desire, technological literacy, and economic means, may also violate patients’ (...) autonomy and exacerbate access. Moreover, since AI design is both a technical and social process, algorithms may mirror human biases, calling into question the vision of AI technologies surpassing human judgment and avoiding prejudices in decision‐making. The best answer to these problems is to develop AI health technologies as part of a culture of health care quality improvement, responding to existing needs while being proactive about potential technical and ethical problems that can arise from the technologies’ design and implementation. (shrink)

In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Mélanie Terrasse, Moti Gorin, and Dominic Sisti, urge ethicists to devote scholarly attention to a wave of troubling artificial intelligence applications affecting health consumers’ rights and the quality of their care. I very much agree. We already have neuroethicists, business ethicists, and genetics ethicists; AI‐related systems in health care present more than enough warrant to herald the appearance of a new ethics specialist—the “intel‐ethicist,” let’s say. Nonetheless, Terrasse and colleagues may (...) have exaggerated some of the potential moral problems of AI. Examining only social media and e‐health programs, the authors produce an impressive array of questions to consider, but I will argue that two of them are not nearly as worrisome as might be supposed. (shrink)

In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Jason Wasserman and Mark Navin argue that patients without decisional capacity can still have relatively stable wishes or inclinations toward one treatment option over another and that these preferences are “not devoid of moral weight and might therefore guide or at least influence treatment decisions when they cannot be defeated by other considerations.” This position is not controversial among most bioethicists. The hard work comes in sussing out the details of (...) this position. How much moral weight do these preferences have? When should preferences be defeated by other considerations? How should we identify actual preferences, and how should preferences be differentiated and weighed against one another? (shrink)

In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Govind Persad and Ezekiel Emanuel argue that “[t]he provision of cheaper, less effective health care is frequently the most effective way of promoting health and realizing the ethical values of utility, equality, and priority to the worst off.” I agree that we should not let the perfect get in the way of the good, but just providing cheaper, less effective treatment for utilitarian or other reasons is not a comprehensive approach (...) to global health. In my experience as an on-the-ground global health practitioner, the choice is never that simple. As time passes, dynamics evolve, and so should the responses to a global health problem. The goal of global health should be urgently improving responses toward better access to care and equity in health, without which the good may become the enemy of the better. In other words, there are places and times in which the approach Persad and Emanuel describe may be appropriate, but their recommendations fail to account for the realities of a population-level medical emergency and for the fact that once an emergency is initially or partially addressed in any setting, time can be the enemy, if it breeds complacency. (shrink)

Debates over health care have focused for so long on economics that the proper goals for medicine seem to be taken for granted; yet problems in health care stem as much from a lack of agreement about the goals and priorities of medicine as from the way systems function. This book asks basic questions about the purposes and ends of medicine and shows that the answers have practical implications for future health care delivery, medical research, and the education of medical (...) students. The Hastings Center coordinated teams of physicians, nurses, public health experts, philosophers, theologians, politicians, health care administrators, social workers, and lawyers in fourteen countries to explore these issues. In this volume, they articulate four basic goals of medicine — prevention of disease, relief of suffering, care of the ill, and avoidance of premature death — and examine them in light of the cultural, political, and economic pressures under which medicine functions. In reporting these findings, the contributors touch on a wide range of diverse issues such as genetic technology, Chinese medicine, care of the elderly, and prevention and public health. The Goals of Medicine clearly demonstrates the importance of clarifying the purposes of medicine before attempting to change the economic and organizational systems. It warns that without such examination, any reform efforts may be fruitless. (shrink)

The problem at the heart of “Stemming the Standard-of-Care Sprawl: Clinician Self-Interest and the Case of Electronic Fetal Monitoring,” an article by Kayte Spector-Bagdady and colleagues in the November-December 2017 issue of the Hastings Center Report, is the persistence of a suboptimal standard of care long after evidence-driven approaches would dictate a change. That problem is not simply defensive medicine, or what the authors call “standard-of-care sprawl.” Instead, it is that, in some cases, the standard of care lags (...) behind best practices. It gets stuck. The authors point to the genesis of the stickiness problem in their passing reference to a core truth: “The problem is that standard of care is not synonymous with best or evidence-based medicine.” In my view, we might best understand the persistence of ineffective and even harmful medical interventions by acknowledging the regulatory vacuum in which such practices thrive. It is by default, not by design, that the profession relies on medical malpractice law to set the boundaries on acceptable practice. (shrink)

Our goal in producing this special issue is to encourage our colleagues to incorporate topics related to LGBT populations into bioethics curricula and scholarship. Bioethics has only rarely examined the ways in which law and medicine have defined, regulated, and often oppressed sexual minorities. This is an error on the part of bioethics. Medicine and law have served in the past as society's enforcement arm toward sexual minorities, in ways that robbed many people of their dignity. We feel that bioethics (...) has an obligation to discuss that history and to help us as a society take responsibility for it.We can address only a small number of topics in this special issue of the Hastings Center Report, and we selected topics we believe will stimulate discourse. Andrew Solomon offers an elegant overview of the challenges that bioethics faces in articulating a solid basis for LGBT rights. Timothy F. Murphy asks whether bioethics still faces issues related to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, given the deletion of homosexuality as a disease and the progress toward same‐sex marriage. Jamie Lindemann Nelson's essay addresses the search for identity for transgender persons and the role of science in that search. Two articles, those by Brendan S. Abel and by Jack Drescher and Jack Pula, take up the complex issue of medical treatment for children who reject their assigned birth gender. Celia B. Fisher and Brian Mustanski address the special challenges of engaging LGBT youth in research, balancing the need for better information about this vulnerable group against the existing restrictions on research involving children. Tia Powell and Edward Stein consider the merits of legal bans on psychotherapies intended to change sexual orientation, particularly in the light of current research on orientation. Mary Beth Foglia and Karen I. Fredricksen‐Goldsen highlight health disparities and resilience among LGBT older adults and then discuss the role of nonconscious bias in perpetuating disparities. Stephan Davis and Nancy Berlinger assess the challenges of access to care and health policy for transgender persons. Edward J. Callahan et al. tackle the ways in which diverse aspects of medicine should change to better incorporate the needs of LGBT patients, including through use of the electronic medical record, education of health professionals, and recruitment efforts for LGBT health professionals. Virginia Ashby Sharpe and Uchenna S. Uchendu describe multifaceted efforts within Veterans Administration facilities to create change for LGBT veterans across the largest integrated health care network in the United States. Lance Wahlert and Autumn Fiester find a mixed record in the use of case studies in teaching about LGBT issues. (shrink)