Religion Welcome Here: A Pluriversal Approach to Religion and Global Bioethics.

This paper sets forth and defends a pluriversal approach to religion in the context of an increasingly global bioethics. Section I introduces a pluriversal view as a normative technique for engaging across difference. A normative pluriversal approach sets five constraints: civility, change from within, justice, non-domination, and tolerance.

Digital Doppelgängers and Lifespan Extension: What Matters?

There is an ongoing debate about the ethics of research on lifespan extension: roughly, using medical technologies to extend biological human lives beyond the current "natural" limit of about 120 years. At the same time, there is an exploding interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to create "digital twins" of persons, for example by fine-tuning large language models on data specific to particular individuals. In this paper, we consider whether digital twins (or digital doppelgängers, as we refer to them) could be a path toward a kind of life extension-or more precisely, a kind of extension-that does not rely on biological continuity.

Personhood: An emergent view from Africa and the West.

African understandings of personhood are complex, with different accounts emphasizing distinct aspects of what it means to be a person. Some accounts stress excellence of character and performing well in social roles and relationships, while others focus on innate moral qualities of individuals independent of their conduct and character. This paper sheds new light on these twin aspects of personhood.

War, Bioethics, and Public Health.

This paper argues that bioethics as a field should broaden its scope to include the ethics of war, focusing on war's public health effects. The "Introduction" section describes the bioethics literature on war, which emphasizes clinical and research topics while omitting public health. The section, "War as a public health crisis" demonstrates the need for a public health ethics approach by framing war as a public health crisis.

Nancy S. Jecker, Zohar Lederman, and Anita Ho reply.

This letter replies to the letter "Colonial and Neocolonial Barriers to Companion Digital Humans in Africa," by Luís Cordeiro-Rodrigues, in the same, May-June 2024, issue of the Hastings Center Report.

AI and the falling sky: interrogating X-Risk.

This paper argues that the headline-grabbing nature of existential risk (X-Risk) diverts attention away from immediate artificial intelligence (AI) threats, including fairly disseminating AI risks and benefits and justly transitioning towards AI-centred societies. Section I introduces a working definition of X-Risk, considers its likelihood and explores possible subtexts. It highlights conflicts of interest that arise when tech luminaries lead ethics debates in the public square.

Digital Humans to Combat Loneliness and Social Isolation: Ethics Concerns and Policy Recommendations.

Social isolation and loneliness are growing concerns around the globe that put people at increased risk of disease and early death. One much-touted approach to addressing them is deploying artificially intelligent agents to serve as companions for socially isolated and lonely people. Focusing on digital humans, we consider evidence and ethical arguments for and against this approach.

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: Lessons from Africa: Ubuntu, solidarity, dignity, kinship, and humility.

This paper addresses bioethics in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The Introduction (Section 1) highlights that at the field's inception, infectiousness was not front and center. Instead, infectious disease was widely perceived as having been conquered.

Academic freedom under siege.

This paper describes a global pattern of declining academic freedom, often driven by powerful political interference with core functions of academic communities. It argues that countering threats to academic freedom requires doubling down on ethics, specifically standards of justice and fairness in pursuing knowledge and assigning warrant to beliefs. Using the example of the selection of a Qatari university to host the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics, the authors urge fairness towards diverse groups over time and efforts to counter injustices that conferences generate.

Proposed Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing: Anti-Discriminatory, Global, and Inclusive.

This paper opens a critical conversation about the ethics of international bioethics conferencing and proposes principles that commit to being anti-discriminatory, global, and inclusive. We launch this conversation in the Section, Case Study, with a case example involving the International Association of Bioethics' (IAB's) selection of Qatar to host the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics. IAB's choice of Qatar sparked controversy.

The ethics of bioethics conferencing in Qatar.

In 2022, the International Association of Bioethics (IAB) announced that the 17th World Congress of Bioethics would be held in Doha, Qatar. In response to ethical concerns expressed about the Qatar selection, the IAB Board of Directors developed and posted to the IAB website a response using a Q&A format. In this Letter, we (the IAB President and Vice President) address concerns about the ethics of bioethics conferencing raised in a 2023 Letter to the Editor of Bioethics by Van der Graaf et al.

Social Robots to Fend Off Loneliness?

Social robots are increasingly being deployed to address social isolation and loneliness, particularly among older adults. Clips on social media attest that individuals availing themselves of this option are pleased with their robot companions. Yet, some people find the use of social robots to meet fundamental human emotional needs disturbing.

Achieving Global Vaccine Equity: The Case for an International Pandemic Treaty.

This paper presents an ethical argument in support of an international Pandemic Treaty. It argues that an international Pandemic Treaty is the best way to mark progress on global vaccine equity and broader issues of global pandemic preparedness and response which came to light during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Section I evaluates principles of multilateral charity, national security, and international diplomacy standardly invoked in debates about global vaccine allocation and argues that these approaches fall short.

What the 'greater good' excludes: Patients left behind by pre-operative COVID-19 screening in an Ethiopian town.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, bioethical analyses often emphasized population health and societal benefit. Hospital policies frequently focused on reducing risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 by restricting visitors; requiring protective equipment; and screening staff, patients and visitors. While restrictions can be burdensome, they are often justified as essential measures to protect the whole population against a virus with high rates of transmission, morbidity and mortality.

Too old to save? COVID-19 and age-based allocation of lifesaving medical care.

Adults aged 65 and over are disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and represent by far the largest share of severe disease and death. This paper critically examines ethical arguments for using implicit and explicit age criteria as a standard for allocating scarce lifesaving resources during the pandemic. Section 1 introduces the topic.

Towards a new model of global health justice: the case of COVID-19 vaccines.

This paper questions an exclusively state-centred framing of global health justice and proposes a multilateral alternative. Using the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to illustrate, we bring to light a broad range of global actors up and down the chain of vaccine development who contribute to global vaccine inequities. Section 1 (Background) presents an overview of moments in which diverse global actors, each with their own priorities and aims, shaped subsequent vaccine distribution.

Global sharing of COVID-19 therapies during a "New Normal".

This paper argues for global sharing of COVID-19 treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond based on principles of global solidarity. It starts by distinguishing two types of COVID-19 treatments and models sharing strategies for each in small-group scenarios, contrasting groups that are solidaristic with those composed of self-interest maximizers to show the appeal of solidaristic reasoning. It then extends the analysis, arguing that a similar logic should apply within and between nations.