scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 2561-4665

Canadian Journal of Bioethics 

BioéthiqueOnline
About: Canadian Journal of Bioethics is an academic journal published by BioéthiqueOnline. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Humanities & Bioethics. It has an ISSN identifier of 2561-4665. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 269 publications have been published receiving 571 citations. The journal is also known as: Revue canadienne de bioéthique / Canadian journal of bioethics & RCB.

Papers published on a yearly basis

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors reviewed several of the forces playing an increasingly pernicious role in how health and science information is interpreted, shared and used, drawing discussions towards the role of narrative, and explored how aspects of narrative are used in different social contexts and communication environments, and presented creative responses that may help counter the negative trends.
Abstract: Numerous social, economic and academic pressures can have a negative impact on representations of biomedical research. We review several of the forces playing an increasingly pernicious role in how health and science information is interpreted, shared and used, drawing discussions towards the role of narrative. In turn, we explore how aspects of narrative are used in different social contexts and communication environments, and present creative responses that may help counter the negative trends. As traditional methods of communication have in many ways failed the public, changes in approach are required, including the creative use of narratives.

46 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the incompatibility of deficit-based research with principles from several ethical frameworks including the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) Chapter 9, OCAP® (ownership, control, access, possession), Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami National Inuit Strategy on Research, and Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) Principles for Global health Research was explored.
Abstract: Health research tends to be deficit-based by nature; as researchers we typically quantify or qualify absence of health markers or presence of illness. This can create a narrative with far reaching effects for communities already subject to stigmatization. In the context of Indigenous health research, a deficit-based discourse has the potential to contribute to stereotyping and marginalization of Indigenous Peoples in wider society. This is especially true when researchers fail to explore the roots of health deficits, namely colonization, Westernization, and intergenerational trauma, risking conflation of complex health challenges with inherent Indigenous characteristics. In this paper we explore the incompatibility of deficit-based research with principles from several ethical frameworks including the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) Chapter 9, OCAP® (ownership, control, access, possession), Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami National Inuit Strategy on Research, and Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) Principles for Global Health Research. Additionally we draw upon cases of deficit-based research and stereotyping in healthcare, in order to identify how this relates to epistemic injustice and explore alternative approaches.

39 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The United Kingdom became the first country in the world to legalize mitochondrial/nuclear transfer (M/NT) in 2015, making the heated debate surrounding this technology even more relevant.
Abstract: Mitochondrial/nuclear transfer (M/NT) to avoid the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease raises complex and challenging ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI). In February 2015, the United Kingdom became the first country in the world to legalize M/NT, making the heated debate surrounding this technology even more relevant. This critical interpretive review identified 95 relevant papers discussing the ELSI of M/NT, including original research articles, government-commissioned reports, editorials, letters to editors and research news. The review presents and synthesizes the arguments present in the literature in relation to the most commonly raised themes: terminology; identity, relationships and parenthood; potential harm; reproductive autonomy; available alternatives; consent; impact on specific interest groups; resources; “slippery slope”; creation, use and destruction of human embryos; and beneficence. The review concludes by identifying those ELSI that are specific to M/NT and by calling for follow-up longitudinal clinical and psychosocial research in order to equip future ELSI debate with empirical evidence.

17 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and post-colonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand. In this paper, I would like to expand such critique in two ways: on the one hand, I will point out some issues that have been left unresolved; on the other hand, I will address indigenous and colonial experiences that are different from British settler colonies, which have massively shaped our understanding of indigeneity and the relationship of archaeology to it. I am particularly concerned with two key problems: alterity – how archaeologists conceptualize difference – and collaboration – how archaeologists imagine their relationship with people from a different cultural background. My reflections are based on my personal experiences working with communities in southern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and South America that differ markedly from those usually discussed by indigenous archaeologies.

16 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that international development research should be submitted to the oversight of research ethics committees from the countries where data will be collected, and acknowledge the legitimacy of local authorities, taking a stance against the history of colonizing disempowerment.
Abstract: This paper argues that international development research should be submitted to the oversight of research ethics committees from the countries where data will be collected. This includes research conducted by individuals who may fall outside the jurisdictions of most ethics guidelines or policies, such as individuals contracted by non-governmental organizations. The argument is grounded in an understanding of social justice that recognizes that not seeking local ethics approval can be an affront to the decolonization movement, and may lead to significant direct harms to participants. Local ethics oversight can help ensure projects appropriately take into consideration local laws, regulations, priorities and context. For example, a local research ethics committee may be in a better position than a foreign one to assess whether any given proposed project carries context-specific risks. In addition, submitting to a local research ethics committee is to acknowledge the legitimacy of local authorities, thereby taking a stance against the history of colonizing disempowerment. Local oversight is a mechanism to increase the accountability of researchers working abroad: if respect for local authority and tailoring to local context are to be upheld, there must be mechanisms to ensure that research that does not meet these requirements does not proceed. Objections based on the limited oversight capacity in some countries and on concerns related to the politicization of the review process are discussed. Finally, the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders in the implementation of greater local ethics oversight are laid out.

11 citations

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
202334
202273
202122
202051
201993