Books in the Basic Bioethics series

Scholars discuss the genetic modification of embryonic cells from the viewpoints of traditional Jewish and Christian teaching, considering both the possible therapeutic benefits of this technology and moral concerns about its implementation.

"An original examination of the relevance of behavioral economics for the practice of medical ethics"--

Physicians, philosophers, and theologians consider how to address death and dying for a diverse population in a secularized century.

An analysis of current biomedical research misconduct policy that proposes a new approach emphasizing the context of misconduct and improved oversight.

Discussions of key ethical dilemmas in mental health care, including consent, trauma and violence, addiction, confidentiality, and therapeutic boundaries.

An overview of the key debates in biomedical research ethics, presented through a wide-ranging selection of case studies.

A legal and moral analysis of medical decision making on behalf of those with such severe cognitive impairments that they cannot exercise self-determination.

One of the founding fathers of bioethics describes the development of the field and his thinking on some of the crucial issues of our time.

An argument that the system of boards that license human-subject research is so fundamentally misconceived that it inevitably does more harm than good.Medical and social progress depend on research with human subjects. When that research is done in institutions getting federal money, it is regulated (often minutely) by federally required and supervised bureaucracies called “institutional review boards” (IRBs). Do—can—these IRBs do more harm than good? In The Censor's Hand, Schneider addresses this crucial but long-unasked question. Schneider answers the question by consulting a critical but ignored experience—the law's learning about regulation—and by amassing empirical evidence that is scattered around many literatures. He concludes that IRBs were fundamentally misconceived. Their usefulness to human subjects is doubtful, but they clearly delay, distort, and deter research that can save people's lives, soothe their suffering, and enhance their welfare. IRBs demonstrably make decisions poorly. They cannot be expected to make decisions well, for they lack the expertise, ethical principles, legal rules, effective procedures, and accountability essential to good regulation. And IRBs are censors in the place censorship is most damaging—universities. In sum, Schneider argues that IRBs are bad regulation that inescapably do more harm than good. They were an irreparable mistake that should be abandoned so that research can be conducted properly and regulated sensibly.

A new patient-centered approach to psychiatry that aims to resolve the field's conceptual tension between science and humanism by drawing on classical American pragmatism and contemporary pragmatic bioethics.

Experts discuss the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of genetic testing in determining eligibility for life insurance.