Extra session on stem cell ethics:
Open call for abstracts
Submission deadline Monday March 22
We are happy to announce that we are adding an extra session on stem cell ethics.
Professor Ruth Faden at Johns Hopkins University will give a keynote lecture with an overview about ethical concerns in stem cell science and therapy. Professor Faden is an international expert in this area and we have decided to create an extra session in association with her talk.
Stem cell research has stirred debate and ethical concerns within the scientific community and in society at large. This area of science is still in its early phases, but holds out promises to offer new ways to repair diseased and damaged tissue by replacing them with healthy cells from isolated stem cell lines.
Both embryonic stem cells, different kinds of adult stem cells and progenitor cells are the objects for research. This research has not yet reached the stage of clinical application. It is important to identify and discuss ethical issues related to stem cell therapy before clinical trials start. It is also an area where ideological and prudential interests have collided.
These concerns are highlighted in connection with the theme of the first day of the conference: Should ideology be allowed to trump patient well-being?
We now welcome a limited number of abstracts in order to explore some of the ethical issues in this area for an extra session on stem cell ethics. The session will be held in the afternoon of Monday June 14.
Submission deadline Monday March 22.
We welcome your contribution!
Mats G. Hansson and Ruth Chadwick
Previous call for this conference: Waiting for speaker confirmations
All those who submitted abstracts have been contacted and we are now waiting for confirmations before publishin the programme.
The conference is divided into three themes, one for each day of the conference. Each theme has three keynote presentations that will be followed by oral presentations in parallel sessions.
Abstract submission guidelines
-
Please make the abstract as informative as possible, including a brief background, the methods/approach of the study, the results obtained and the conclusions based upon the results. It is inadequate to state "the results will be discussed" or "the data will be presented".
-
Please use the following headings:
- Background
- Methods/approach
- Conclusion
- Results
- Please indicate session when submitting your abstract.
- Abstracts should be submitted electronically no later than 15 February 2010.
- Abstracts cannot be submitted by fax, hard copy or e-mail.
- Acknowledgement of receipt of your submission will be sent to the stated e-mail address under section “Corresponding details”. If you do not receive an e-mail within 24 hours, your submission was not completed and needs to be re-submitted.
- Notification on acceptance/rejection of the abstracts will be e-mailed mid March 2010.
- The corresponding author will receive all correspondence concerning the abstract and is responsible for informing the other authors of the status of the abstract.
- One of the following topics that best describes the abstract should be indicated upon submission: o What is the role of informed consent in medical research? o Ethical review boards: are they important ethical safeguards or over-burdensome and unnecessary bureaucracy? o Should ideology be allowed to trump patient well-being? • Abstracts must be written in English.
- Maximum 2000 characters (including spaces and excluding title and contact information on authors).
- It is the author’s responsibility to submit a correct abstract; any errors in spelling, grammar, or scientific fact will be reproduced as typed by the author, if accepted.
- You can follow the progress of your abstract online by using your Personal Page. Your personal page makes it possible for you to:
- make changes/updates until the submission deadline - read and print your abstract
- follow the status of your submitted abstract
Enter abstract submission here >
Enter your Personal page here >
For submission support please contact
medical-ethics2010@congrex.com
Open call for abstracts [closed February 15]
This conference is divided into three themes, one for each day of the conference. Each theme has three keynote presentations that will be followed by oral presentations in parallel sessions.
- Monday June 14
Should ideology be allowed to trump patient well-being? - Tuesday June 15
What is the role of informed consent in medical research? - Wednesday June 16
Ethical review boards: are they important ethical safeguards or over-burdensome and unnecessary bureaucracy?
We wanted to be a little provocative but, as the examples of questions indicate, we expect input both regarding "medical ethics as unduly bureaucratic" and "researchers as lazy when they complain about this alleged bureaucracy". We think that both ideology and prudence may in practice play a role both in clinical decision-making and in medical research ethics, but think that medical ethics, and the patients, would benefit from a clearer understanding of their relationship and their proper roles. We welcome presentations on medical research ethics as well as clinical ethics and encourage both empirical and theoretical contributions including discussions about different philosophical approaches to these issues. The abstracts will be peer reviewed and a notification of acceptance is due in March 2010.
On this basis we invite scholars of all disciplines and medical practitioners to submit abstracts.
The Scientific Committee welcomes the submission of abstracts for oral presentation for the conference. Abstracts should be submitted according to the guidelines below.
Accepted abstracts will be published in the Final programme and on the conference website. Presenting authors are encouraged to register and pay the registration fee when submitting an abstract. If the abstract is not accepted, the registration fee is refundable.
Submission deadline is 15 February 2010.
We welcome your contribution!
Mats G. Hansson and Ruth Chadwick
The conference is divided into three themes, one for each day of the conference.
Should ideology be allowed to trump patient well-being?
Monday June 14
Advanced treatment should not be expected by old patients who have passed the limits of a natural life span. The creation of hybrid embryos for research is resisted because it is against nature, even if no implantation is ever considered. Patenting of human embryonic stem cells is denied beacuse it implies a destruction of human embryos and so is believed to violate public morality. Gene therapy is still among some believed to be equal to playing God and tampering with life. Genetic and brain enhancement in order to help socially disabled individuals to master social life is not politically correct, but who cares? In veterinary medicine it is claimed that animals should be able to live a natural life. At what cost for their health and well-being? On the other hand, should any advance be pursued if there is some chance that it might promote the well-being of some patients? Some concerns in medical ethics refer to prudential values, e.g. to be in control, to enjoy life, to experience some measure of deep personal relationships. Other concerns are of an ideological nature, they are believed to be of vital importance even at the cost of individuals suffering. Should there be room for ideology and politics in medical ethics?
Programme with keynote titles >
What is the role of informed consent in medical research?
Tuesday June 15
Informed consent was originally introduced in order to protect research subjects from being exposed to unacceptable risks. Several information and consent procedures have been developed in order to manage different kinds and levels of risk. The trend seems now to go in another direction where informed consent is the formula for respecting individual self-determination regardless of if there are any risks at all: it is transferred from its original context to those which may require different approaches. Now even epidemiological research based on medical registers may seem to require explicit and specific informed consent. Should this in turn be applied to all efforts to improve everyday routines in the delivery of health care one can foresee an ethical cost of some magnitude. Is quality assurance intended to reduce risks and improve efficiency an object for informed consent or something patients rightfully should expect any hospital to do on their behalf? Is ’informed consent’ placing responsibility squarely on the shoulders of patients? Is informed consent just there to protect the back of the doctors and researchers? Should individual autonomy be respected at any cost? Is it necessarily a political suicide to suggest that individual autonomy should sometimes give way to public health?
Programme with keynote titles >
Ethical review boards: important ethical safeguards or over-burdensome and unnecessary bureaucracy?
Wednesday June 16
A gene therapy trial for the treatment of SCID (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency Syndrome) was discontinued after two of the trial subjects had got leukemia. However, some of the children and their parents wanted to continue the trial. They regarded living the rest of their lives in plastic bubble tents as a worse scenario. Patients suffering from a progressive cancer may want a cancer drug even if this implies an increased risk of heart disease, but the authorities for the protection of research subjects may not allow them. In the name of justice and the rule of law ethical review boards increase the bureaucracy of doing medical research. Is this necessary to protect the research subjects or does it only serve political ends? Is there a medicine that can be taken without any risk? Ethical review boards decide that some questions may be too sensitive to ask research subjects, are they right? Who is responsible for turning ethical review into a process of a court of law? Are researchers just lazy when they complain over a growing ethics bureaucracy?
Programme with keynote titles >
Organisers
The conference is arranged by Cesagen at the universities of Lancaster and Cardiff and the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics at Uppsala University.
The Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics is an interfaculty centre at Uppsala University.
Cesagen is a collaborative research centre which is funded as part of the ESRC Genomics Network. The Centre is based at the universities of Lancaster and Cardiff.
In collaboration with:
Main sponsor:
