ISSN Print 2713-0894    ISSN Online 2713-0908
Medical Ethics

New articles

The article provides answers to immediate questions associated with the state regulation of confidentiality of information and exchange of data in the era of digital healthcare. The institute of medical confidentiality which originated in the ancient world is still evolving throughout the development of medical law. In the current era of global digitalization, however, the issues related to data confidentiality have become more relevant than ever. With all the modern technologies and digital health care platforms on the rise, new challenges associated with protection of these patients are emerging. To ensure the reliable protection of patient’s personal and medical information, doctors and medical institutions have to meet data security standards. It becomes vital to develop effective strategies and mechanisms to prevent unauthorized access and data leakage due to a larger volume of electronic medical records and digital data exchange. Strict rules and standards regulating collection, storage and transfer of medical data belong to a key aspect in this area. The Russian Federation is making great efforts to create the legislation which could protect the rights of patients and made medical establishments to follow the high standards of confidentiality, and to develop technical aids that provide data encryption and protection against hacker attacks.
The article sums up the pros and cons regarding the animal models selected and critically explored by Cameron Shelley in the article entitled ‘Why test animals to treat humans? On the validity of animal models’. Special attention is given to the adaptation of the topic-related English version of this discourse for a Russian-speaking reader. Arguments of supporters and opponents of animal models provided by C. Shelley are reviewed. The issue of the effective use of animals in biomedical research considering the validity criterion is being discussed. The connection between the validity and morality of an animal model suggested by C. Shelley is further elaborated. According to C. Shelley, out of three critical arguments for animal modeling, the pseudoscience argument and the disanalogy argument do not work, as the pressing issues they raise are interpreted by supporters in the wrong way. The predictive validity argument is not sufficient, as the doubts raised about the predictive power of animal models are either not supported or lack clear formulation. C. Shelley states that assessing the validity of an animal model is a complex task, which includes various approaches to determining the extent of model validity as appropriate, and defines the problem as an issue of determining the type of validity and its effect on the assessed morality of an animal model. According to the author, ethical issues come down to pragmatics of validity as a criterion capable of disorientating critics of animal modeling or at least reconciling them with the necessity and inevitability of animal experiments.

Popular articles

Recently, there has been tension is our society because of health-associated problems resulting from at least two factors. First, we are facing collision of neoliberal economics with the traditional ethics of our society. Simplistic understandings of social tendencies typical of our society and processes within the global community provoke a reaction in the form of various conspiracy theories supported by a dualistic ethical approach within our society. In one case, it is based on neoliberal trends and is increasingly manifested through the views of non-governmental organizations. In the other case, it is extremely conservative and tied to the traditional morality. The politics that tends to act within the bounds of the possible goes through both options, creating even more confusion. Another factor, which is no less important, includes blurred connotation and denotation of such notions as ‘freedom’, ‘sovereign’, ‘sovereign decision’, ‘human life sacredness’, resulting in various misinterpretations. The purpose of this article is to review the occurring dilemmas by disclosing the terms in the historical context. The possible conclusion is that the common global tendency of law harmonization under the influence of neoliberal economics is far from the dream about the Perpetual Peace as seen by Kant two hundred years ago. Regular standards that form the basis of the social ethics occupy less space in the legislation just like the ethics itself, even if used as a corrective measure, with economic logics taking up a larger place. There will be a ‘market price’ for everything (Kant). In the light of the above, we tried to review vaccination and euthanasia as two very specific and pressing issues.