• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Self-tests for influenza: an empirical ethics investigation

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 May 5;18(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0192-y.
[h=1]Self-tests for influenza: an empirical ethics investigation.[/h] Rumbold B[SUP]1[/SUP], Wenham C[SUP]2[/SUP], Wilson J[SUP]3[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] In this article we aim to assess the ethical desirability of self-test diagnostic kits for influenza, focusing in particular on the potential benefits and challenges posed by a new, mobile phone-based tool currently being developed by i-sense, an interdisciplinary research collaboration based (primarily) at University College London and funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Our study adopts an empirical ethics approach, supplementing an initial review into the ethical considerations posed by such technologies with qualitative data from three focus groups.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Overall, we map a range of possible considerations both for and against the use of such technologies, synthesizing evidence from a range of secondary literature, as well as identifying several new considerations previously overlooked.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] We argue that no single consideration marks these technologies as either entirely permissible or impermissible but rather tools which have the potential to incur certain costs and benefits, and that context is important in determining these. In the latter stages of the article, we explain how developers of such technologies might seek to mitigate such costs and reflect on the possible limitations of the empirical ethics method brought out during the study.
[h=4]TRIAL REGISTRATION:[/h] Not applicable.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Diagnostics; Empirical ethics; Ethics; Influenza; Point-of-care tests; Self-tests

PMID: 28476115 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-017-0192-y
 
Back
Top Bottom