The Linacre Quarterly

Controversies often surround the use of vaccines, particularly among the pediatric population. Often, the possible temporal relationship between vaccination and subsequent disease is at the center of the controversy. However, others have questioned the moral status of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine because of some instances of state coercion and also the possibility that the vaccine may promote promiscuity. This article addresses the moral status of the HPV vaccine from the perspective of a primary care physician and father of four daughters.

Lay Summary: Parents are often asked by pediatricians for permission to vaccinate their children under the age of consent against the sexually transmitted virus HPV. This article addresses the medical and moral concerns about vaccination with some guiding principles to assist in a final decision.

This article is a complement to “A Template for Non-Religious-Based Discussions Against Euthanasia” by Melissa Harintho, Nathaniel Bloodworth, and E. Wesley Ely which appeared in the February 2015 Linacre Quarterly. Herein we build upon Daniel Sulmasy's opening and closing arguments from the 2014 Intelligence Squared debate on legalizing assisted suicide, supplemented by other non-faith-based arguments and thoughts, providing four nontheistic arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: (1) “it offends me”; (2) slippery slope; (3) “pain can be alleviated”; (4) physician integrity and patient trust.

Lay Summary: Presented here are four non-religious, reasonable arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: (1) “it offends me,” suicide devalues human life; (2) slippery slope, the limits on euthanasia gradually erode; (3) “pain can be alleviated,” palliative care and modern therapeutics more and more adequately manage pain; (4) physician integrity and patient trust, participating in suicide violates the integrity of the physician and undermines the trust patients place in physicians to heal and not to harm.

The “brain death” standard as a criterion of death is closely associated with the need for transplantable organs from heart-beating donors. Are all of these potential donors really dead, or does the documented evidence of patients destined for organ harvesting who improve, or even recover to live normal lives, call into question the premise underlying “brain death”? The aim of this paper is to re-examine the notion of “brain death,” especially its clinical test-criteria, in light of a broad framework, including medical knowledge in the field of neuro-intensive care and the traditional ethics of the medical profession. I will argue that both the empirical medical evidence and the ethics of the doctor–patient relationship point to an alternative approach toward the severely comatose patient (potential brain-dead donor).

Lay Summary: Though legally accepted and widely practiced, the “brain death” standard for the determination of death has remained a controversial issue, especially in view of the occurrence of “chronic brain death” survivors. This paper critically re-evaluates the clinical test-criteria for “brain death,” taking into account what is known about the neuro-critical care of severe brain injury. The medical evidence, together with the understanding of the moral role of the physician toward the patient present before him or her, indicate that an alternative approach should be offered to the deeply comatose patient.

It is controversial whether tube feeding in people with dementia improves nutritional status or prolongs survival. Guidelines published by several professional societies cite observational studies that have shown no benefit and conclude that tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia should be avoided. However, all studies on tube feeding in dementia have major methodological flaws that invalidate their findings. The present evidence is not sufficient to justify general guidelines. Patients with advanced dementia represent a very heterogeneous group, and evidence demonstrates that some patients with dementia benefit from tube feeding. However, presently available guidelines make a single recommendation against tube feeding for all patients. Clinicians, patients, and surrogates should be aware that the guidelines and prior commentary on this topic tend both to overestimate the strength of evidence for futility and to exaggerate the burdens of tube feeding. Shared decision making requires accurate information tailored to the individual patient's particular situation, not blanket guidelines based on flawed data.

Lay Summary: Many doctors believe that tube feeding does not help people with advanced dementia. Scientific studies suggest that people with dementia who have feeding tubes do not live longer or gain weight compared with those who are carefully hand fed. However, these studies are not very helpful because of flaws in design, which are discussed in this article. Guidelines from professional societies make a blanket recommendation against feeding tubes for anyone with dementia, but an individual approach that takes each person's situation into account seems more appropriate. Patients and surrogates should be aware that the guidelines on this topic tend both to underestimate the benefit and exaggerate the burdens of tube feeding.

This review explains the main effects exerted by sex steroids and other hormones on the adolescent brain. During the transition from puberty to adolescence, these hormones participate in the organizational phenomena that structurally shape some brain circuits. In adulthood, this will propitiate some specific behavior as responses to the hormones now activating those neural circuits. Adolescence is, then, a critical “organizational window” for the brain to develop adequately, since steroid hormones perform important functions at this stage. For this reason, the adolescent years are very important for future behaviors in human beings. Changes that occur or fail to occur during adolescence will determine behaviors for the rest of one's lifetime. Consequently, understanding the link between adolescent behavior and brain development as influenced by sex steroids and other hormones and compounds is very important in order to interpret various psycho-affective pathologies.

Lay Summary : The effect of steroid hormones on the development of the adolescent brain, and therefore, on adolescent behavior, is noticeable. This review presents their main activational and organizational effects. During the transition from puberty to adolescence, organizational phenomena triggered by steroids structurally affect the remodeling of brain circuits. Later in adulthood, these changes will be reflected in behavioral responses to such hormones. Adolescence can then be seen as a fundamental “organizational window” during which sex steroids and other hormones and compounds play relevant roles. The understanding of the relationship between adolescent behavior and the way hormones influence brain development help understand some psychological disorders.

Stephen Napier has argued against the soundness of what he calls the “Canon-Law argument” against the moral permissibility of a couple employing a condom for the sake of one spouse avoiding the contraction of HIV from the other spouse. Without an attempt to provide a full defense of the Canon-Law argument per se, this paper argues that Napier has not shown that argument to be inadequate. Napier's critique of that argument suffers from unsubstantiated counterexamples and from a failure to take into account analogous senses of “procreative end” in reference to the conjugal act. Using magisterial documents and canonical sources, this paper suggests that the distinction between validity and liceity can be usefully applied to conjugal acts.

Lay Summary: Stephen Napier has argued in favor of the claim that there is no plausible argument for thinking that married couples who use a condom in order to prevent HIV transmission are necessarily doing something morally wrong. In responding to Napier by showing that his arguments in favor of his claim are inconclusive, this article introduces a distinction, frequently used in sacramental theology, between validity and liceity (lawfulness) and applies this distinction to marital actions. I argue that some modifications to martial actions make them merely unlawful, whereas other modifications—such as using an intact condom—make them both unlawful and “invalid.”