As work on practical wisdom and medicine accelerates, now is a good time to outline some important challenges that any approach to developing an account of this virtue faces. More specifically, I develop five challenges having to do with the existence and nature of practical wisdom, and whether it connects with objective and general normative truths. The main goal is to provide a guide to the challenges themselves and some of the options available for tackling them, rather than trying to resolve them here.

The longstanding view of doctors as scientists has been an emphasis in the MCAT and medical school training. However, the AAMC recommended recognizing the importance of social and behavioral science for medicine. There is also a growing realization that being a smart problem solver and the physician as scientist model emphasizes a cold cognitive problem-solving paradigm that overlooks other human capacities that may be critical to medical reasoning and decision-making. Considering a smart physician versus a wise physician, intelligence and problem-solving are important, but a wise physician can use other important capacities beyond intelligence and rationality. This could benefit patients by introducing patient and family perspective taking, as well as compassion in doctor-patient interaction. By reconceptualizing professions from the perspective of practical wisdom, this may increase resilience to problems such as burnout. I outline some psychological capacities viewed as important in wise reasoning that are not about traditional views of intelligence. I argue that wise reasoning is not a native talent but a skill that can be developed. I argue that different kinds of experiences can increase aspects of empathy, epistemic humility, perspective taking, and wise reasoning and I examine evidence that wise reasoning may increase resilience.

Contemporary healthcare environments are becoming increasingly informationally demanding. This requires patients, and those supporting them, to engage with a broad range of expert knowledge. At the same time, patients must find ways to make sense of this information in the context of their own values and needs. In this article, we confront the problem of communication in our current age of complexity. We do this by focusing on a field that has already had to grapple with these issues directly: genetic counseling. We articulate an empathy-based framework that provides a way to integrate the teaching and counseling models of genetic counseling. As well as being useful for those providing genetic counseling in the era of genomic medicine, this framework has the potential to address challenges of communication in healthcare settings beyond genetic counseling. Furthermore, it has important ramifications for ethical debates about autonomy and decision-making.

It is widely supposed that it is important to ensure that patients undergoing medical procedures hope that their treatments will be successful. But why is hope so important, if indeed it is? After examining the answers currently on offer in the literature, we identify a hitherto unrecognized reason for supposing that it is important that patients possess hope for a successful treatment, which draws on prospect theory, Kahneman and Tversky's hugely influential descriptive theory about decision-making in situations of risk and uncertainty. We also consider some concerns about patient consent and the potential manipulation of patients that are raised by our account.

Drawing on Catherine Malabou's notion of plasticity, this article argues for a conception of resilience as plastic. Resilience has proven an important concept in health care, describing how we manage life-changing illnesses. Yet, resilience is not without its critics, who suggest it neglects a political, social, or personal dimension in illness. In this article, I propose that a concept of plastic resilience can address these criticisms. On this account, success should not be based on a return to function, but rather on how actively we are involved in the formation of a new self after illness. I address some approaches that can benefit from "plastic resilience," namely, art therapy, expert companionship, and shared decision-making. In each case, I underline how we should help patients thematize and engage with their new selves, while also being constantly vigilant for how these changes might impact our current assumptions around their preferences for treatment.

One criticism of medical aid in dying (MAID) is the expressivist objection: MAID is morally wrong because it expresses judgments about disabilities or persons with disabilities, that are offensive, disrespectful, or discriminatory. The expressivist objection can be made at the level of individual patients, medical providers, or the state. The expressivist objection originated with selective abortion, and responses to it in that context typically claim either that selective abortion does not express specific judgments about disabilities, or that any judgments expressed are not offensive. This response is inadequate: MAID often does express negative judgments about disabilities, which could reasonably be seen as offensive. But, does this offensiveness make MAID wrong? Drawing on Joel Feinberg's account of offense, I argue that it is unlikely that the offensiveness of the judgments expressed by individuals who seek MAID or through the state's legalization of MAID is enough to make it morally impermissible.

It is widely held that to break a promise that one made to a person who is now dead would be to wrong her. This view undergirds many positions in bioethics, ranging from those that concern who may access a person's medical records after she has died, to questions concerning organ procurement and posthumous procreation. Ashley Dressel has argued that there is no reason to believe that promissory obligations can be owed to people who are dead. Although her arguments are unsuccessful, others establish that neither of the promissory obligation accounts that she considers (the "Authority Account" and the "harm-based view") can justify the standard view that directed posthumous promissory obligation is possible. However, this does not mean that the received view that we should keep our promises to the dead is mistaken. First, the theoretical commitments and argumentative strategies of those who endorse the possibility of posthumous promissory obligations preclude them from grounding such on either of these accounts of directed promissory obligation. They are thus already committed to justifying such obligations in other ways. Second, the obligation to keep promises to the dead could be justified on the grounds that not to do so would adversely affect the living.

Simon Rippon, revising an earlier argument against kidney sales, now claims that offers involving the performance of invasive acts, when extended to people under pressure, constitute a kind of rights violation, Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands. Since offers involving kidney sales so qualify, Rippon finds prima facie reason to prohibit them. The present article levels four independent objections to Rippon's argument: the account of Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands implausibly condemns kidney donation as much as kidney sales; the normative importance of having autonomous veto control over bodily incursions does not plausibly underwrite a right to not be extended invasive offers under pressure; Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands can easily be transformed into innocuous offers; and the prohibition has greater welfare costs than Rippon acknowledges.

Moral bioenhancement presents the possibility of enhancing morally desirable emotions and dispositions. While some scholars have proposed that moral bioenhancement can produce virtue, we argue that within a virtue ethics framework moral bioenhancement cannot reliably produce virtue. Moreover, on a virtue ethics framework, the pursuit of moral bioenhancement carries moral risks. To make this argument, we consider three aspects of virtue-its motivational, rational, and behavioral components. In order to be virtuous, we argue, a person must (i) take pleasure in doing the right thing and have the correct motivational attitudes; (ii) reason correctly about what is called for in a particular ethical dilemma; and (iii) intentionally and continuously practice and cultivate virtues. These dimensions of morality-in short: precisely those emphasized in a virtue ethics framework-cannot be consistently or reliably met using existing moral bioenhancement technology.

There is disagreement among physicians and medical ethicists on the precise goals of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM). Some think that HPM's goals should differ from those of other branches of medicine and aim primarily at lessening pain, discomfort, and confusion, while others think that HPM's practices should aim, like all other branches of medicine, at promoting health. I take the latter position: using the ars moriendi to set a standard for what it means to die well, I argue that if HPM's practices were to aim at mitigating suffering with little regard to promoting health, some patients would die worse deaths than if HPM's practices were to aim at health. According to the ars moriendi, flourishing at the end of one's life requires that persons exercise their agency and pursue the goods most important to them. On this view, HPM's practices should promote patients' health to enable them to pursue these goods.

The underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions hinders pharmacovigilance. Solutions to underreporting are oftentimes directed at clinicians and healthcare professionals. However, given the recent rise of public inclusion in medical science, solutions may soon begin more actively involving patients. I aim to offer an evaluative framework for future possible proposals that would engage patients with the aim of mitigating underreporting. The framework may also have value in evaluating current reporting practices. The offered framework is composed of three criteria that are bioethical, social-epistemic, and pragmatic: (i) patients should not be exposed to undue harms, for example, nocebo effects; (ii) data should be collected, analyzed, and communicated while prioritizing pharmacovigilance's aims, that is, free from industry bias; and (iii) proposals should account for existing and foreseeable pragmatic constraints like clinician "buy in" and existing reporting infrastructure. Proposals to engage patients in pharmacovigilance that fulfil or address these criteria are preferable to those that do not.

Physicians are shaped by sociological and philosophical factors that often differ from those of their patients. This is of particular concern in pluralistic societies when navigating ethical disagreements because physicians often misunderstand or even dismiss patient perspectives as being irrational. This paper examines these factors and why many physicians approach ethics as they do while elucidating various patient perspectives and demonstrating how they make sense when considered from a different cultural worldview. Many physicians are trained in contexts that are WEIRD: Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. These sociological characteristics tend to go hand in hand with the trio of individualism, secularism, and existentialism. These then shape an approach to ethics that focuses on the individual patient, makes no reference to the divine, and focuses on a patient's personal desires. This contrasts significantly with many patients who are collectivistic or religious, and then make rational decisions based on other values. The social fact of pluralism implores physicians to temper confidence in their own cultures while considering others to promote mutual understanding and improved care. This paper concludes with a discussion of how bridges can be built across cultures without sliding into relativism, beginning with recognizing and communicating our shared moral intuitions.

The dead donor rule (DDR) has facilitated the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives. Recent advances in heart donation, however, have exposed how DDR has limited donation of all organs. We propose advancing the moment in the dying process at which death can be determined to increase substantially the supply of organs for transplantation. We justify this approach by identifying certain flaws in the Uniform Determination of Death Act and proposing a modification of that law that permits earlier procurement of healthier organs in greater numbers.

The Willowbrook Hepatitis Study is one of the best-known examples of unethical medical research, but the research has always had defenders. One of the more intriguing defenses continually used was that critics did not know the researchers on the study and, therefore, could not assess their ethics. This essay traces the appeal to the researchers' characters across published research and archival sources from the 1960s through today. These appeals reflect the observation as old as Aristotle that one of the most potent modes of persuasion is ethos or character. The specific types of character in these appeals develop out of the paternalistic nature of clinical and research practice in the mid-twentieth century. If the individual physician is the locus of medical judgment, then the physician's character becomes a key concern for bioethics. These appeals still appear and have implications for bioethics in the present day.

While some countries are moving toward legalization, euthanasia is still criticized on various fronts. Most importantly, it is considered a violation of the medical ethics principle of non-maleficence, because it actively seeks a patient's death. But, medical ethicists should consider an ethical alternative to euthanasia. In this article, we defend cryocide as one such alternative. Under this procedure, with the consent of terminally-ill patients, their clinical death is induced, in order to prevent the further advance of their brain's deterioration. Their body is then cryogenically preserved, in the hope that in the future, there will be a technology to reanimate it. This prospect is ethically distinct from euthanasia if a different criterion of death is assumed. In the information-theoretic criterion of death, a person is not considered dead when brain and cardiopulmonary functions cease, but rather, when information constituting psychology and memory is lost.

Hyperagency objections appeal to the risk that cognitive enhancement may negatively impact our well-being by giving us too much control. I charitably formulate and engage with a prominent version of this objection due to Sandel (2009) -viz., that cognitive enhancement may negatively impact our well-being by creating an "explosion" of responsibilities. I first outline why this worry might look prima facie persuasive, and then I show that it can ultimately be defended against. At the end of the day, if we are to resist cognitive enhancement, it should not be based on a Sandel-style hyperagency argument.

It is often argued that certain metaphysical complications surrounding the phenomenon of monozygotic twinning force us to conclude that, prior to the point at which twinning is no longer possible, the zygote or early embryo cannot be considered an individual human organism. In this essay, I argue, on the contrary, that there are in fact several ways of making sense of monozygotic twinning that uphold the humanity of the original zygote, but also that there is no easy answer to what happens when the human zygote twins. All of the options available carry with them one or more surprising, alarming, or otherwise counterintuitive implications. All things considered, I conclude that the "budding option," according to which the original human organism present before twinning carries on as one of the resulting embryos but not the other, is the most plausible explanation of what happens when a human zygote twins.

The moment when a person's actual relationships fall short of desired relationships is commonly identified as the etiological moment of chronic loneliness, which can lead to physical and psychological effects like depression, worse recovery from illness and increased mortality. But, this etiology fails to explain the nature and severe impact of loneliness. Here, we use philosophical analysis and neuroscience to show that human beings develop and maintain our world-picture (our sense of what is true, important, and good) through joint attention and action, motivated by friendship, in the Aristotelian sense of "other selves" who share a sense of the true and the good, and desire the good for each other as much as for themselves. The true etiological event of loneliness is the moment one's world-picture becomes unshared. The pathogenesis is a resultant decay of our world-picture, with brain and behavior changes following as sequelae.

Jerome Wakefield criticizes my biostatistical analysis of the pathological-as statistically subnormal biological part-functional ability relative to species, sex, and age-for its lack of a harm clause. He first charges me with ignoring two general distinctions: biological versus medical pathology, and disease of a part versus disease of a whole organism. He then offers 10 counterexamples that, he says, are harmless dysfunctions but not medical disorders. Wakefield ends by arguing that we need a harm clause to explain American psychiatry's 1973 decision to declassify homosexuality. I reply, first, that his two distinctions are philosophic fantasies alien to medical usage, invented only to save his own harmful-dysfunction analysis (HDA) from a host of obvious counterexamples. In any case, they do not coincide with the harmless/harmful distinction. In reality, medicine admits countless chronic diseases that are, contrary to Wakefield, subclinical for most of their course, as well as many kinds of typically harmless skin pathology. As for his 10 counterexamples, no medical source he cites describes them as he does. I argue that none of his examples contradicts the biostatistical analysis: all either are not part-dysfunctions (situs inversus, incompetent sperm, normal-flora infection) or are indeed classified as medical disorders (donated kidney, Typhoid Mary's carrier status, latent tuberculosis or HIV, cherry angiomas). And if Wakefield's HDA fits psychiatry, the fact that it does not fit medicine casts doubt on psychiatry's status as a medical specialty.

This article examines the cross-cultural bioethical concerns stemming from the potential use of CRISPR-Cas9 for genetic enhancement projects. It emphasizes the need to differentiate between basic and non-basic human rights when considering genetic enhancement, as recent international declarations lack this distinction. Basic rights possess a universal nature and are applicable across cultures, while non-basic rights are culturally specific and should be determined within respective regions. To illustrate this, the study explores the acceptance or rejection of non-basic rights related to genetic enhancement in two distinct cultural categories: Type-A and Type-B cultures. Type-A cultures predominantly adhere to a liberal moral framework, while Type-B cultures are rooted in Confucian morality. Additionally, the article argues for two basic rights in genetic enhancement: the right to be free from bodily harm and the right to be free from deception. These rights differ from non-basic rights and should be universally upheld in all cultures. By analyzing a hypothetical case and drawing parallels with the He Jiankui incident, the article investigates the violation of these two basic rights in each scenario, regardless of cultural context. Consequently, both cases should be unequivocally rejected in both Type-A and Type-B cultures.