MONASH BIOETHICS REVIEW 全面涵盖了生物伦理学中的传统主题和新出现的问题。该杂志特别关注具有政策相关性的经验丰富的哲学生命伦理分析。 MONASH BIOETHICS REVIEW 还定期发表实证研究，提供明确的伦理分析和/或具有重大伦理或政策影响。 MONASH BIOETHICS REVIEW 自 1981 年以来由莫纳什大学人类生物伦理学中心（最初为生物伦理学新闻）出版，是澳大利亚历史最悠久的同行评审生物伦理学期刊，也是世界上最古老的生物伦理学期刊之一。一个具有政策相关性的经验丰富的哲学生命伦理分析的国际论坛。包括提供明确的伦理分析和/或具有重大伦理或政策影响的实证研究。最古老的生物伦理学期刊之一，由世界领先的生物伦理学中心出版。发表长达 13,000 字的论文。独特的新功能：所有文章都开放评论

The Monash Bioethics Review comprehensively covers traditional themes and emerging issues in bioethics. The journal particularly focuses on policy-relevant, experienced philosophical analyses of life ethics and regularly publishes empirical research that provides clear ethical analyses and/or has significant ethical or policy implications. Since its inception in 1981, the Monash Bioethics Review has been published by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics, making it the oldest peer-reviewed bioethics journal in Australia and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. It serves as an international forum for policy-relevant philosophical analyses of life ethics, publishes papers of up to 13,000 words, and features a unique aspect where all articles are open for comment.

《Monash Bioethics Review》全面涵盖生物伦理学中的传统主题和新兴问题。该期刊特别关注与政策相关的经验丰富的哲学生命伦理分析，并定期发表实证研究，提供明确的伦理分析和/或具有重大伦理或政策影响的研究成果。自1981年以来，《Monash Bioethics Review》由莫纳什大学人类生物伦理学中心出版，是澳大利亚历史最悠久的同行评审生物伦理学期刊，也是世界上最古老的生物伦理学期刊之一。它是一个国际论坛，专注于具有政策相关性的哲学生命伦理分析，发表长达13,000字的论文，并且所有文章都开放评论。

Monash Bioethics Review

The ethical issues associated with germline gene modification and embryo research are some of the most contentious in current international science policy debates. In this paper, we argue that new genetic techniques, such as CRISPR, demonstrate that there is an urgent need for China to develop its own regulatory and ethical framework governing new developments in genetic and embryo research. While China has in place a regulatory framework, it needs to be strengthened to include better compliance oversight and explicit criteria for how different types of research should be reviewed by regulatory authorities. We also document a variety of opinions about the new technologies among the public, scholars, and policy makers. China needs to develop its own regulations in coordination with other countries; but it is unlikely that an international consensus will be achieved in this area, given the existing differences in regulations between countries. We should aim at harmonization, not necessarily complete consensus, and the perspective from China is vital when international norms are developed and harmonized. Chinese policy makers and researchers need to be aware of the international discussions, at the same time as the international community is aware of, and accommodates, Chinese positions on important policy options.

Di Zhang

Reidar K Lie

Monash bioethics review

Monash Bioeth Rev

Ethical issues in human germline gene editing: a perspective from China.

Healthcare delivery and access, both in the United States and globally, were negatively affected during the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was particularly true during the first year when countries grappled with high rates of illness and implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions such as stay-at-home orders. Among children with special healthcare needs, research from the United Kingdom (U.K.) has shown that the pandemic response uniquely impacted various aspects of their care, including decreased access to care, delays in diagnosis, and poorer chronic disease control. In response to these findings, and to begin to comprehend whether the concerning findings from the nationalized system of healthcare in the U.K. extend to the highly dissimilar United States (U.S.) healthcare context, we reviewed the literature on alterations in access to and delivery of care during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic for children with special healthcare needs in the U.S. We then utilize these findings to consider the ethical and policy considerations of alterations in healthcare provision during pandemics and crisis events in the U.K. and U.S. and make recommendations regarding how the needs of CSHCN should be considered during future responses.

Jeff Jones

Sapfo Lignou

Yoram Unguru

Mark Sheehan

Michael Dunn

Rebecca R Seltzer

Bioethics News

Alterations in care for children with special healthcare needs during the early COVID-19 pandemic: ethical and policy considerations

早期COVID-19疫情期间特殊健康需求儿童护理的改变：伦理与政策考量

Maja Baretić

David de Bruijn

Correction to: Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology

修正：超越生物学的健康：扩展健康假说与技术

There is currently a pronounced lack of uniformity in the values placed on a life or a QALY by different New Zealand government entities taking actions designed to save lives or QALYs. With some limited exceptions, equity suggests that all QALYs be equally valued, and therefore likewise for all lives with the same residual life expectancy and quality of life. Prima facie, this is attainable by adopting the best (and only credible) New Zealand estimate of the value of life (the NZTA's $12.5 m value of the life of a median age person in good health), and using that or its QALY equivalent as a cutoff figure to determine interventions throughout the public sector. This provides opportunities for large welfare gains, from curtailing existing interventions that currently use much larger cutoff values (such as earthquake strengthening regulations) and expanding interventions that currently use much smaller cutoff values (such as public health spending). However, the NZTA's figure is only applicable to small increases in lives saved, and must decline as the number of additional lives saved increases. This relationship should be estimated.

Martin Lally

The value of lives in New Zealand

新西兰生命的价值

Abstract Antimicrobial resistance has been termed a ‘silent pandemic’, a ‘hidden killer.’ This language might indicate a threat of significant future harm to humans, animals, and the environment from resistant microbes. If that harm is uncertain but serious, the precautionary principle might apply to the issue, and might require taking ‘precautionary measures’ to avert the threat of antimicrobial resistance, including stewardship interventions like antibiotic prescription caps, bans on certain uses in farming sectors, and eliminating over-the-counter uses of antibiotics. The precautionary principle is a useful tool in ethical analyses of antimicrobial stewardship measures, but as I argue in this article, it ought not be used as a standalone tool. The principle considers the magnitude of harms to be averted and those arising from precautionary measures, but—importantly—it does not consider the distribution of those harms. That may raise issues of social justice if the harms of stewardship measures befall already disadvantaged populations. To avoid this blind spot in ethical analysis using the precautionary principle, it ought never be used alone, but rather always alongside justice-considering ethical concepts such as reciprocity, benefit-sharing, or a just transition.

Tess Johnson

Stewardship and social justice: implications of using the precautionary principle to justify burdensome antimicrobial stewardship measures

 stewardship 和 社会正义：使用预防原则为繁重的抗菌药物管理措施辩护的含义

The following text is the de-identified and edited transcript of an invited presentation by Professor Clare Delany on the topic of 'How clinical ethics discussions can be a model for accommodating and incorporating plural values in paediatric and adult healthcare settings.' Professor Delany's presentation formed part of the Conference on Accommodating Plural Values in Healthcare and Healthcare Policy, which was held in Melbourne, Australia, on Monday, October 30, 2023. This conference was a key output of the Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant DP190101597, 'Religion, pluralism, and healthcare practice: A philosophical assessment'. Professor Delany's presentation was introduced by Doctor Lauren Notini, Research Fellow and Lecturer at Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University.

Abbreviation	Monash Bioeth. Rev.
Journal Impact	1.72
Quartiles(Global)	ETHICS(Q2)

ISSN	1321-2753, 1836-6716
h-index	18

Publication Information	Publisher: Springer Publishing Company，Publishing cycle: 2 issues per year，Journal Type: journal，Open Access Journals: No
Basic data	Year of publication: 2002，Proportion of original research papers: 100.00%，Self Citation Rate:6.20%， Gold OA Rate: 42.86%

Monash Bioethics Review

Journal Citation Format

A journal article with 1 author

A journal article with 2 authors

A journal article with 3 authors

A journal article with 5 or more authors

Books Citation Format

Thesis Citation Format

Web sites Citation Format

Patent Citation Format

Staying up late manually editing references? ivySCI automatically matches journals and helps you generate references with a single click.

Share Submission Experience

Ethical issues in human germline gene editing: a perspective from China.

Alterations in care for children with special healthcare needs during the early COVID-19 pandemic: ethical and policy considerations

Correction to: Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology

The value of lives in New Zealand

Stewardship and social justice: implications of using the precautionary principle to justify burdensome antimicrobial stewardship measures

Correction to: Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology

Alterations in care for children with special healthcare needs during the early COVID-19 pandemic: ethical and policy considerations

The value of lives in New Zealand

Stewardship and social justice: implications of using the precautionary principle to justify burdensome antimicrobial stewardship measures

How clinical ethics discussions can be a model for accommodating and incorporating plural values in paediatric and adult healthcare settings