Category: Bioethics

Despite the criticisms by the Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, the international blood association AABB, and other blood advocate groups, despite the increasing sophistication of tests to detect HIV, despite the appearance of discriminatory practices, despite thoughtful editorials by respected bioethicists, the FDA has reiterated its long-standing ban on gay men donating blood.

-Kelly Hills

Originally posted at the American Journal of Bioethics Editors Blog.

Good news for frequent flyers heading east: Viagra appears to offset jetlag. Sadly, it seems to have no effect — at least on jetlag — for those flying west.

After reading the original paper this morning, with several cups of coffee helping to decode the biology, I am left wondering both how Pfizer will pursue this to their best advantage (the risque advertising possibilities seem almost limitless), and less cynically, if it will even work for women at all. As the Women’s Bioethics Blog notes, Viagra does work as an arousal aid for at least some women, so in theory it should help some women with eastbound jetlag. But per the norm in scientific studies, the only mice used were male. Followup study, anyone?

-Kelly Hills

[edited at 1pm EST, May 23rd]

Originally posted at the American Journal of Bioethics Blog.

If you’re European and find yourself jealous of the many options pharma companies have for advertising in the United States, you will be happy to learn that

four of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies are proposing to launch a television station to tell the public about their drugs, amid strenuous lobbying across Europe by the industry for an end to restrictions aimed at protecting patients. Pharma TV would be a dedicated interactive digital channel funded by the industry with health news and features but, at its heart, would be detailed information from drug companies about their medicines.

Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Novartis and Procter & Gamble, are behind the pilot, which they are offering to the European commission as a way to give patients more information. The industry has been lobbying in Europe to be allowed direct access to patients. It argues that lifting restrictions would help its competitiveness and has hinted that companies may relocate to the US, where they can advertise to patients who then demand drugs from their doctors. Profits have soared there as a result.

Of course, pesky things like the detrimental effects to patients and the inaccurate information provided by pharmaceutical industry advertisements, playing down the risks and emphasizing the rewards, are all just part of the fun when proposing a self-regulating, on demand channel of 24/7 advertainment.

-Kelly Hills

Originally posted on the American Journal of Bioethics Editors Blog.

While we have written about a robot code of ethics, the Washington Post has an incredibly touching and illuminating story about soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan interacting bonding with their robots:

Humans have long displayed an uncanny ability to make emotional connections with their manufactured helpmates. Car owners for generations have named their vehicles. In “Cast Away,” Tom Hanks risks his life to save a volleyball named Wilson, who has become his best friend and confidant. Now that our creations display elements of intelligence, however, the bonds humans forge with their machines are even more impressive. Especially when humans credit their bots with saving their lives.

Ted Bogosh recalls one day in Camp Victory, near Baghdad, when he was a Marine master sergeant running the robot repair shop.

That day, an explosive ordnance disposal technician walked through his door. The EODs, as they are known, are the people who ”” with their robots ”” are charged with disabling Iraq’s most virulent scourge, the roadside improvised explosive device. In this fellow’s hands was a small box. It contained the remains of his robot. He had named it Scooby-Doo.

“There wasn’t a whole lot left of Scooby,” Bogosh says. The biggest piece was its 3-by-3-by-4-inch head, containing its video camera. On the side had been painted “its battle list, its track record. This had been a really great robot.”

The veteran explosives technician looming over Bogosh was visibly upset. He insisted he did not want a new robot. He wanted Scooby-Doo back.

It’s a heartwarming story, although it’s actually the introduction, which talks about an Army colonel stopping a test on a centipede-style mine detonation robot because it was “inhumane”, that makes me wonder if the entire point of a robot code of ethics misses something intrinsic in our interaction with robots: how we, ourselves, bond to the robot, regardless of just how sentient that robot is.

-Kelly Hills [with a tip of the hat to Art Caplan]

Originally posted at the American Journal of Bioethics Editors Blog.