Affordable Pricing of CRISPR Treatments is a Pressing Ethical Imperative.

Casgevy, the world's first approved CRISPR-based cell therapy, has been priced at $2.2 million per patient. Although this hefty price tag was widely anticipated, the extremely high cost of this and other cell and gene therapies poses a major ethical issue in terms of equitable access and global health.

Human stem-cell-derived embryo models: When bioethical normativity meets biological ontology.

The use of human stem-cell-derived embryo models in biomedical research has recently sparked intense bioethical debates. In this article, we delve into the ethical complexities surrounding these models and advocate for a deeper exploration of their biological ontology to discuss their bioethical normativity. We examine the ethical considerations arising from the implementation of these models, emphasizing varying viewpoints on their ethical standing and the ethical obligations associated with their development and utilization.

Re-defining the human embryo : A legal perspective on the creation of embryos in research.

A universal legal definition of an embryo as a basis for regulation would create legal certainty for scientists and benefit international research cooperation. [Image: see text]

Why whole body gestational donation must be rejected: a response to Smajdor.

Anna Smajdor's proposal of whole body gestational donation (WBGD) states that female patients diagnosed as brain-dead should be considered for use as gestational donors. In this response, Smajdor's proposal is rejected on four different accounts: (a) the debated acceptability of surrogacy despite women's autonomy, (b) the harm to dead women ́s interests, (c) the interests of the descendants, and (d) the symbolic value of the body and interests of relatives. The first part argues that WBGD rests on a particular conception of the instrumentalization of bodies that cannot be circumvented simply by the patient's consent and relinquished autonomy.

Germline Gene Editing: The Gender Issues.

Human germline gene editing constitutes an extremely promising technology; at the same time, however, it raises remarkable ethical, legal, and social issues. Although many of these issues have been largely explored by the academic literature, there are gender issues embedded in the process that have not received the attention they deserve. This paper examines ways in which this new tool necessarily affects males and females differently-both in rewards and perils.

Synthetic embryos: a new venue in ethical research.

In Brief: Two independent groups have reported the development of 'artificial embryos'. Those are in vitro models made of mouse embryonic stem cells, without the need for egg or sperm, and grown ex utero without requiring implantation. This system might open new venues in bioethical research if human cells show the ability to replicate this system.

COVID-19, the Immune System, and Organic Disability.

Despite the availability of safe vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, some people will remain vulnerable because they will not be vaccinated. Who are these non-vaccinated people? We can distinguish two groups: (i) persons who cannot be vaccinated for clinical reasons and who, despite having been vaccinated, have not achieved immunity; (ii) persons who voluntarily refuse to get vaccinated. These groups have in common an immune system that will make them vulnerable to COVID-19.

Digital Covid Certificates as Immunity Passports: An Analysis of Their Main Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues.

Digital COVID certificates are a novel public health policy to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. These immunity certificates aim to incentivize vaccination and to deny international travel or access to essential spaces to those who are unable to prove that they are not infectious. In this article, we start by describing immunity certificates and highlighting their differences from vaccination certificates.

[Prioritization of health resources in contexts of scarcity. SESPAS Report 2022].

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a clinical challenge, but also a legal and bioethical one. These three fundamental pillars are developed in the approach to prioritizing health resources in pandemic, clinical criteria, corresponding legal framework and applicable ethical principles. Initially, clinical criteria were applied to identify patients with the best survival prognosis, combining a clinical evaluation and the use of short-term and long-term prognostic variables.

Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring.

Background: Some persons conceived with donor gametes react negatively when they found their birth via donor conception. They request access to information about and seek to communicate with the donor. However, some countries mandate donor anonymity.

Mandatory vaccination and the 'seat belt analogy' argument: a critical analysis in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The seat belt analogy argument is aimed at furthering the success of coercive vaccination efforts on the basis that the latter is similar to compulsory use of seat belts. However, this article demonstrated that this argument does not work so well in practice due to several reasons. The possibility of saving resources in health care does not usually apply in our societies, and the paternalist mentality that contributed to the implementation of seat belt-wearing obligation was predominant 30 years ago, but it does not apply at this moment.

Bioethical Concerns During the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Did Healthcare Ethics Committees and Institutions State in Spain?

Each new wave of the COVID-19 pandemic invites the possible obligation to prioritize individuals' access to vital resources, and thereby leads to unresolved and important bioethical concerns. Governments have to make decisions to protect access to the health system with equity. The prioritization criteria during a pandemic are both a clinical and legal-administrative decision with ethical repercussion.

'Digital pills' for mental diseases: an ethical and social analysis of the issues behind the concept.

Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration has given a landmark approval to the very first digital pill with a sensor embedded in the inside. These are complex systems that include a drug and an electronic tracker that is activated when the patient takes the pill. Accordingly, they might be an excellent tool for monitoring and potentially improving patients' adherence to prescriptions.

Immunity passports, fundamental rights and public health hazards: a reply to Brown .

In their recent article, Brown analyse several ethical aspects around immunity passports and put forward some recommendations for implementing them. Although they offer a comprehensive perspective, they overlook two essential aspects. First, while the authors consider the possibility that immunological passports may appear to discriminate against those who do not possess them, the opposite viewpoint of immune people is underdeveloped.

Gene editing and disabled people: a response to Felicity Boardman.

Is the germline gene editing (GEE) of embryos with disabling conditions a moral obligation? According to a recent editorial by F. Broadmann, there are strong reasons to hold the opposite, since "such a focus on the benefit to individual embryos is to overlook the broader societal changes that genome editing will signal, as well as the potential negative impacts on existing persons with genetic conditions". This paper is aimed at rebuking these arguments by invoking the human dignity principle.

Human Dignity and Gene Editing: Additional Support for Raposo's Arguments.

The aim of the present paper is to reinforce some of the affirmations made by Vera Lucia Raposo in a recent paper published by the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. According to her, germline gene editing does not violate human dignity at all. This article offers some complementary ideas supporting her statement.

Should we have a right to refuse diagnostics and treatment planning by artificial intelligence?

Should we be allowed to refuse any involvement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in diagnosis and treatment planning? This is the relevant question posed by Ploug and Holm in a recent article in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. In this article, I adhere to their conclusions, but not necessarily to the rationale that supports them. First, I argue that the idea that we should recognize this right on the basis of a rational interest defence is not plausible, unless we are willing to judge each patient's ideology or religion.

Regulating germline editing in assisted reproductive technology: An EU cross-disciplinary perspective.

Potential applications of genome editing in assisted reproductive technology (ART) raise a vast array of strong opinions, emotional reactions and divergent perceptions. Acknowledging the need for caution and respecting such reactions, we observe that at least some are based on either a misunderstanding of the science or misconceptions about the content and flexibility of the existing legal frameworks. Combining medical, legal and ethical expertise, we present and discuss regulatory responses at the national, European and international levels.

Safety of Germline Genome Editing for Genetically Related "Future" Children as Perceived by Parents.

The social acceptability of germline genome editing (GGE) depends on its perceived safety, as well as respect for reproductive autonomy. However, it is doubtful that prospective parents sufficiently understand the risks of GGE. In the future, the use of GGE in specific situations seems plausible, as it offers couples potential means to safeguard genetically related future children from a serious disease and overcome infertility due to a gene mutation.

Is the 'serious' factor in germline modification really relevant? A response to Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers.

Should we use human germline genome modification (HGGM) only when serious diseases are involved? This belief is the underlying factor in the article written by Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers to which I now respond. In my opinion, the answer to this question should be negative. In this paper, I attempt to show that there are no good reasons to think that this technology should be limited to serious diseases once it is sufficiently proven to be safe and efficient.