2013, Vol.16, No.1

Korean Journal of Medical Ethics 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.21

pISSN : 2005-8284 / eISSN : 2234-3598
https://journal.kci.go.kr/medethics

Informed consent has problems with readability, length, complexity, and so on. On the one hand, rigid requirements related to informed consent discourage subjects to participate experiment. On the other hand, it distracts from more serious ethical problems in clinical research such as decision-making capacity. Recently, there is increasing evidence that some proportion of the population has difficulties with decision-making capacity. Therefore, the neuropsychological tests associated with decision making are needed before giving valid informed consent. The decision making related to informed consent can be described by the interplay between emotional and cognitive functions. How can we investigate this empirically? An appropriate scale measuring neuropsychological function in informed consent should include both cognitive and emotional abilities. Nowadays, the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool(MacCAT) was widely used. But it relies predominantly on cognitive abilities such as understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and expression of choice. Considering recent empirical studies, the inclusion of emotional abilities in relation to decision-making seems to be essential. Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) requires emotional function as well as cognitive function to perform proper decision-making. Thus, it would be necessary to administer both the MacCAT and the IGT in people who have deficits in decision making and in giving valid or invalid informed consent.

The problem of generational justice in modern welfare states is how to equitably distribute social burdens and benefits of the welfare system across generations in a society. Because of the aging of society, however, contributors to the welfare system got fewer whereas beneficiaries from the welfare system got more. In the 1980's, 'liberal' welfare institutions seemed to fail to maintain generational equity so that 'liberal' welfare institutions, and 'liberalism' itself were harshly criticized. Against these criticisms, Daniels proposed a liberal theory of generation justice, 'prudential life-span account'. In this paper, I try to provide its adequate understanding and defend it. To achieve my aim, I clarify its horizontal and vertical contexts and draw its theoretical and practical implications. Actually, the problem of 'generational justice' is not one, but two problems which are 'justice between age groups' and 'justice between birth cohorts'. Justice between age groups is typically understood as a problem of interpersonal distribution. Considering the fact that we all age, it should be understood as a problem of interpersonal distribution. So understood, the guiding principle of justice between age groups is the principle of prudence which is adequately framed. Regarding justice between birth cohorts, all birth cohorts have to solve the problem of justice between age groups and the only sustainable solution is to maintain a stable transfer system between young and old generations. To maintain this transfer system, co-existing birth cohorts should make benefit ratios approximate to equality. After clarifying 'prudential life-span account, I defend it from Mckerlie's criticism.

Recent advances in the development of biotechnology have led to the creation of a variety of organisms, named part-human animals, with both human and animal components. Scientists have created part-human animals that have both human cells and animal cells in their body. I want to avoid the term 'chimera' and 'hybrid' because of using both creation methods of chimeras and hybrids in making part-human animals. The part-human animals might hold enormous potential for clinical application as well as basic research into human physiology. Despite its potential, however, the progression of part-human animal research has given rise to many ethical concerns. The arguments against the creation of part-human animals are related to the concerns about human dignity and moral confusion and also the crossing and violating of the “species boundary” are morally repugnant and wrong. For these reason, we found that the public's negative attitudes toward making part-human animals, We should know that part-human animals research is required the deeply consideration.