非法人体试验的实质化犯罪证成与刑法规制

同一社会的法律法规整体中,不同性质的法对行为违法性的评价始终是一致的。《民法典》的问世,将人格权独立成编。人格权的独立成编不仅彰显了国家对公民的生命权、身体权、健康权的法律保护,亦体现了法律对现代医学科学时代人格权新型权利内容的特别维护。刑法应当积极回应非法人体试验这一社会现实,准确把握刑事法律的国际趋势,科学构建刑法体系,完善人体试验法律秩序,保护受试者的合法权益,推动医学研究的良性发展。     

The Merits of Eudaimonism

This paper starts with Immanuel Kant’s definition of “eudaimonism” (a term he created) as a single‐source account of motivation, and explains why he thinks the eudaimonist is unacceptably self‐regarding. In order to modify and improve Kant’s account, the paper then revisits the Christian scholastics. Scotus is distinguished from Aquinas on the grounds that Scotus has a more robust conception of the will that encompasses the ranking of the affection for advantage (for the agent’s happiness and perfection) and the affection for justice (for what is good in itself, independent of this relation to the agent). This is a double‐source account of motivation. With these conceptual resources in hand, the paper goes on to examine Jean Porter’s defense of eudaimonism, urging that she begs the question against the Scotist view. Finally, the paper makes a conciliating suggestion that preserves most, but not all, of what the eudaimonist wants.     

“医学伦理学再启程”亟待破解的医学伦理课题

面临新境遇的医学伦理学,亟待破解的医学伦理课题有：医疗资本和医疗利益集团追求利润最大化的行为对公立医疗机构公益性造成持续性损害;医学高新技术僭越伦理底线,无限制地对身体进行技术干预;医学技术权力与医学高新技术、医疗资本结盟形成挑战医学伦理的异化力量;确立利益伦理是医学伦理学研究的重要内容;确认患者利益置于首位是现代医学伦理学的首要原则;促进美德伦理与规范伦理结合,推进制度伦理建设与机构伦理建设是医学伦理学落地生根的关键环节。

     

对精准医学批评的辨析

首先澄清我国网站上发表的两篇有关精准医学博文中事实上的错误和概念上的混淆。接着讨论了对精准医学提出的批评及对这些批评的分析。指出精准医学术语本身容易引起误解和引起人们过高的期望;对精准医学的论述和实施中存在基因决定论倾向, 即过分夸大基因在健康和疾病中的作用, 而忽视环境、生活方式、社会因素的作用, 这在政策上就会导致在发展高端医学与发展大众医学上不能保持平衡的问题;将巨大的资源投入精准医学研究未进行认真的成本-效果分析, 也未考虑到精准医学研究成果的公平可及, 以避免加深社会不公正问题;最后, 在吸引商家参与精准医学研究计划时未考虑如何力求避免可能引起的利益冲突问题。     

论临床代理决策中的“患者最佳利益原则”

对于无行为能力患者的代理决策,传统的预先指令与替代决策模式已暴露其局限性,如误读患者利益或者掺杂代理人的利益.基于最佳利益原则的决策模式能最大限度维护他们的利益,医学最佳利益与拓展的最佳利益是其两种模式.前者将生命质量作为核心要素;后者还包括患者个体的价值观与宗教信仰等个体利益.在我国社会语境中,应当实施医学最佳利益标准.在临床实践中,判断最佳利益依然遭遇不少障碍,包括理性人视角、代理人情感投射等.因此,需要合理的医疗判断、明确其构成要素、设置必要的程序以及完善的法律制度.     

Consulting and compromising: the (non-)religious policy preferences of British MEPs

The UK provides an important case study when analysing the influence of religious attitudes and values on political behaviour in the European Union. Our research shows British members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to be relatively at ease working with the different faith-based organisations (FBOs) which seek to influence the European policy process – and much more so than many of their colleagues from other member-states. This can potentially be explained by the more ‘pluralist’ political culture which is prevalent in the UK, and can also be related to the comparatively high rates of non-church attendance among the British sample which facilitates their even-handedness towards different groups. This, in turn, produces a resistance to allowing religious factors to disproportionately influence European policymaking.     

The other side of the coin: Vocational interests,interest differentiation and annual income at the occupation level of analysis

This research examined the effects of vocational interest levels and differentiation on annual income. Following the environmental perspective, we investigated whether relationships existed at the occupation level of analysis. Using data from 665 occupations in the U.S. obtained from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and O*Net, we demonstrated that certain vocational interests – namely investigative, enterprising, and realistic interests – were most critical in predicting annual income for occupations. Controlling for interest levels, differentiation not only positively predicted annual income but also moderated each interest's relationship with income. In addition, occupations' education and training requirement partially mediated the effects of interest profiles on income. Our findings reveal the need for a better understanding of how characteristics of an occupation's interest profile may shape the experiences of its workers.     

Ethical Considerations of Multiple Roles in Forensic Services

Attorneys increasingly rely on the services of mental health practitioners. Although some practitioners lack training, the promise of professional rewards lead some to accept opportunities with resulting ethical quandaries. Due to significant differences between the objectives of traditional mental health services and expert testimony, problems occur when clinicians venture into forensic services. Attorneys and judges, unfamiliar with mental health specialties, may seek to press a mental health practitioner into multiple roles. Although not all multiple roles are ethically inappropriate, caution demands careful parsing of particular roles: (a) academic/behavioral science expert; (b) fact witness as a treating therapist; (c) expert witness based on a clinically oriented assessment; (d) pretrial and/or trial consultant; and (e) professional critic of other experts. Possible ethical issues and risks associated with accepting multiple roles are identified and strategies for avoiding or minimizing harm or exploitation are discussed.     

话题兴趣与文本阅读眼动特征的研究

以大学生为被试,用ASL504型眼动仪,探讨话题兴趣对文本阅读过程眼动特征和文本阅读理解的影响。结果表明：(1)话题兴趣促进深层理解,而不能促进表层理解。(2)话题兴趣主要与阅读时间和注视点数相关联,而与阅读效率无关。(3)文本阅读过程中,阅读时间、注视点数两项眼动指标存在显著的性别差异。     

Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention

Minors are generally considered incompetent to provide legally binding decisions regarding their health care, and parents or guardians are empowered to make those decisions on their behalf. Parental authority is not absolute, however, and when a parent acts contrary to the best interests of a child, the state may intervene. The best interests standard is the threshold most frequently employed in challenging a parent's refusal to provide consent for a child's medical care. In this paper, I will argue that the best interest standard provides insufficient guidance for decision-making regarding children and does not reflect the actual standard used by medical providers and courts. Rather, I will suggest that the Harm Principle provides a more appropriate threshold for state intervention than the Best Interest standard. Finally, I will suggest a series of criteria that can be used in deciding whether the state should intervene in a parent's decision to refuse medical care on behalf of a child.