Named an Outstanding Academic Title for 2009 byChoice! "[A] set of almost 70 essays, all well informed and many with attitude." Harold Shapiro, PhD Professor Emeritus and Professor of Economics and Public Affairs Princeton University, Former Chair, National Bioethics Advisory Board "This most noteworthy and authoritative collection of 67 essays...represents 'the Penn way of doing bioethics' ....The Penn Center is widely known for multidisciplinary scholarship that emphasizes empirical inquiry on bioethical issues coupled with practical application(s)....The book provides excellent coverage of...both classical topics (e.g., informed consent, infertility, eugenics) and emerging issues (e.g., cloning, nonprofessional caregiving, privacy of thought in the age of brain imaging). The contributors, including the three editors, are either well-established or emerging scholars. Each essay offers historical background, an overview of relevant issues, a conclusion, and a list of references....Summing Up: Highly recommended."--Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries "This well-written book addresses a wide-ranging assortment of traditional bioethics issues that persist in the field as well as contemporary bioethics concerns that have evolved with new technologies and medical advances. This is a great resource for scholars in bioethics as well as various other relevant disciplines concerned with bioethical issues." Score: 96, 4 stars--Doody's Medical Reviews The Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania is the internationally recognized leader in bioethical education and research. Its interdisciplinary faculty is drawn from the fields of medicine, law, nursing, education, philosophy, psychology, and religious studies. Arthur L. Caplan, the Center's founding director, is recognized as one of the most influential experts in bioethics. He has authored numerous books and articles, and served as the Chair of the Advisory Committee to the United Nations on human cloning. The Penn Center's leading fellows, Autumn Fiester and Vardit Ravitsky, have combined their expertise with Dr. Caplan and over 80 other contributors to create The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics--the foremost authority on both traditional and cutting-edge bioethical issues. The Penn Guide navigates uncharted ethical terrains, undoubtedly shaping both academic and public discourses on the challenging controversies generated by new technologies, theories, and medical advances. This volume represents the Penn Center's distinct, pioneering approach to bioethics, one that emphasizes empirical treatment of bioethical issues, and the integration of bioethical scholarship with practical application. Learn what the Penn Center has to say about: Neuroethics and brain imaging: Is my mind mine? Choosing future people: reproductive technologies and identity Eugenics and survival of the fittest in the modern world Bioethics and national security Vaccination, abortion, nanotechnology, organ transplantation, end-of-life issues, and more The Penn Guide will be the definitive text for policy makers, health practitioners, researchers, and students. This book will also inform the general public, patients, and family members as they seek answers to the bioethical issues of the day.

Discussions of key ethical dilemmas in mental health care, including consent, trauma and violence, addiction, confidentiality, and therapeutic boundaries. This book discusses some of the most critical ethical issues in mental health care today, including the moral dimensions of addiction, patient autonomy and compulsory treatment, privacy and confidentiality, and the definition of mental illness itself. Although debates over these issues are ongoing, there are few comprehensive resources for addressing such dilemmas in the practice of psychology, psychiatry, social work, and other behavioral and mental health care professions. This book meets that need, providing foundational background for undergraduate, graduate, and professional courses. Topics include central questions such as evolving views of the morality and pathology of deviant behavior; patient competence and the decision to refuse treatment; recognizing and treating people who have suffered trauma; addiction as illness; the therapist's responsibility to report dangerousness despite patient confidentiality; and boundaries for the therapist's interaction with patients outside of therapy, whether in the form of tennis games, gift-giving, or social media contact. For the most part the selections address contemporary issues in contemporary terms, but the book also offers a few historic or classic essays, including Thomas S. Szasz's controversial 1971 article “The Ethics of Addiction.” Contributors Laura Weiss Roberts, Frederic G. Reamer, Charles P. O'Brien, and Thomas McLellan

NOW FEATURING A NEW AFTERWORD, "PANDEMIC ETHICS" From two eminent scholars comes a provocative examination of bioethics and our culture’s obsession with having it all without paying the price. Shockingly, the United States has among the lowest life expectancies and highest infant mortality rates of any high-income nation, yet, as Amy Gutmann and Jonathan D. Moreno show, we spend twice as much per capita on medical care without insuring everyone. A “remarkable, highly readable journey” (Judy Woodruff ) sure to become a classic on bioethics, Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven but Nobody Wants to Die explores the troubling contradictions between expanding medical research and neglecting human rights, from testing anthrax vaccines on children to using brain science for marketing campaigns. Providing “a clear and compassionate presentation” (Library Journal) of such complex topics as radical changes in doctor-patient relations, legal controversies over in vitro babies, experiments on humans, unaffordable new drugs, and limited access to hospice care, this urgent and incisive history is “required reading for anyone with a heartbeat” (Andrea Mitchell).

Experts from different disciplines offer novel ideas for improving research oversight and protection of human subjects. The current framework for the regulation of human subjects research emerged largely in reaction to the horrors of Nazi human experimentation, revealed at the Nuremburg trials, and the Tuskegee syphilis study, conducted by U.S. government researchers from 1932 to 1972. This framework, combining elements of paternalism with efforts to preserve individual autonomy, has remained fundamentally unchanged for decades. Yet, as this book documents, it has significant flaws—including its potential to burden important research, overprotect some subjects and inadequately protect others, generate inconsistent results, and lag behind developments in how research is conducted. Invigorated by the U.S. government's first steps toward change in over twenty years, Human Subjects Research Regulation brings together the leading thinkers in this field from ethics, law, medicine, and public policy to discuss how to make the system better. The result is a collection of novel ideas—some incremental, some radical—for the future of research oversight and human subject protection. After reviewing the history of U.S. research regulations, the contributors consider such topics as risk-based regulation; research involving vulnerable populations (including military personnel, children, and prisoners); the relationships among subjects, investigators, sponsors, and institutional review boards; privacy, especially regarding biospecimens and tissue banking; and the possibility of fundamental paradigm shifts. Contributors Adam Braddock, Alexander Morgan Capron, Ellen Wright Clayton, I. Glenn Cohen, Susan Cox, Amy L. Davis, Hilary Eckert, Barbara J. Evans, Nir Eyal, Heidi Li Feldman, Benjamin Fombonne, Elisa A. Hurley, Ana S. Iltis, Gail H. Javitt, Greg Koski, Nicole Lockhart, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Michael McDonald, Michelle N. Meyer, Osagie K. Obasogie, Efthimios Parasidis, Govind Persad, Rosamond Rhodes, Suzanne M. Rivera, Zachary M. Schrag, Seema K. Shah, Jeffrey Skopek, Laura Stark, Patrick Taylor, Anne Townsend, Carol Weil, Brett A. Williams, Leslie E. Wolf

After decades of decline during the twentieth century, breastfeeding rates began to rise again in the 1970s, a rebound that has continued to the present. While it would be easy to see this reemergence as simply part of the naturalism movement of the ’70s, Jessica Martucci reveals here that the true story is more complicated. Despite the widespread acceptance and even advocacy of formula feeding by many in the medical establishment throughout the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s, a small but vocal minority of mothers, drawing upon emerging scientific and cultural ideas about maternal instinct, infant development, and connections between the body and mind, pushed back against both hospital policies and cultural norms by breastfeeding their children. As Martucci shows, their choices helped ideologically root a “back to the breast” movement within segments of the middle-class, college-educated population as early as the 1950s. That movement—in which the personal and political were inextricably linked—effectively challenged midcentury norms of sexuality, gender, and consumption, and articulated early environmental concerns about chemical and nuclear contamination of foods, bodies, and breast milk. In its groundbreaking chronicle of the breastfeeding movement, Back to the Breast provides a welcome and vital account of what it has meant, and what it means today, to breastfeed in modern America.

From the courtrooms of Nuremberg to the battlefields of the Gulf War, Undue Risk exposes a variety of government policies and specific cases, includingplutonium injections to unwilling hospital patients, and even the attempted recruitment of Nazi medical scientists bythe U.S. government after World War II.

A balanced proposal that protects both a patient's access to care and a physician's ability to refuse to provide certain services for reasons of conscience. Physicians in the United States who refuse to perform a variety of legally permissible medical services because of their own moral objections are often protected by “conscience clauses.” These laws, on the books in nearly every state since the legalization of abortion by Roe v. Wade, shield physicians and other health professionals from such potential consequences of refusal as liability and dismissal. While some praise conscience clauses as protecting important freedoms, opponents, concerned with patient access to care, argue that professional refusals should be tolerated only when they are based on valid medical grounds. In Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care, Holly Fernandez Lynch finds a way around the polarizing rhetoric associated with this issue by proposing a compromise that protects both a patient's access to care and a physician's ability to refuse. This focus on compromise is crucial, as new uses of medical technology expand the controversy beyond abortion and contraception to reach an increasing number of doctors and patients. Lynch argues that doctor-patient matching on the basis of personal moral values would eliminate, or at least minimize, many conflicts of conscience, and suggests that state licensing boards facilitate this goal. Licensing boards would be responsible for balancing the interests of doctors and patients by ensuring a sufficient number of willing physicians such that no physician's refusal leaves a patient entirely without access to desired medical services. This proposed solution, Lynch argues, accommodates patients' freedoms while leaving important room in the profession for individuals who find some of the capabilities of medical technology to be ethically objectionable.