Assent to medical research or treatment may be an intuitively attractive way to address the area between incapacity and capacity that might otherwise be subject to a best interests assessment. Assent has become a widely disseminated concept in law, research, and clinical ethics, but little conceptual work on assent has so far occurred. An exploration of use of assent in treatment and research in children and people with dementia suggests that at least five claims are made on behalf of assent. Since at least some of these may lead to tensions with others, assent requires firmer conceptual underpinning. Whether assent remains primarily a local approach to research in children in the United States, where it appears to fit with legal background conditions, or develops its promise to overturn the dominant, binary, approach to (in)capacity will depend on the strength of future philosophical work to improve the theoretical foundations to assent.

Clinicians are often called upon to assess the capacity of a patient to appoint a healthcare agent. Although a consensus has emerged that the standard for such assessment should differ from that for capacity to render specific healthcare decisions, exactly what standard should be employed remains unsettled and differs by jurisdiction. The current models in use draw heavily upon analogous methods used in clinical assessment, such as the “four skills” approach. This essay proposes an alternative model that relies upon categorization and sliding scale risk assessment that can be used to determine to how much scrutiny the proxy appointment should be subjected and how much certainty of accuracy should be required in order to maximize the patient’s autonomy and ensure that her underlying wishes are met.

In this article I show how ubiquitous hybridity is in cultures. It is enabled by layers of population movements and contacts since the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa around 50,000 years ago. I demonstrate how hybridization has proceeded in the emergence of creole language varieties and show that the same process has also driven, for instance, the emergence and differential evolution of English and the speciation of Vulgar Latin into the Romance languages. Differences in outcomes are determined by the specificities of the contact ecologies, including population structure, differences in the demographic proportions of the populations in contact and power relations between them, as well as patterns of population growth, among other factors. I argue that hybridity is not unique to languages. It is conspicuous in other domains of culture, including cuisine, music, clothing fashions, and technologies, for example. I submit a uniformitarian approach inspired by evolutionary biology to better understand how hybridization occurs.

This article puts the spotlight on the world’s largest artificial reproduction technology (ART) industry—that of Japan, seeking to explain the exceptional tardiness of the government there to install a comprehensive legal framework that regulates these practices. By relying on minutes from a conversation with an influential parliamentarian active in this area, as well as official documents, media reports, and an interview conducted with key physicians, the article reconstructs the historical trajectory leading to the enactment in December 2020 of the Assisted Reproduction Technology Act. The author contends that it is only on the background of an overview of what happened in the two decades preceding the promulgation of this Act that a sense can be made of why the latter came to be as scant and evasive as it is in terms of provisions, de facto leaving unaltered the socially and ethically undesirable situation of self-regulation in ART application by the Japanese doctors. This article adds credence to the hypothesis with regard to the issue of regulatory governance of emerging technologies more broadly that the direction of travel is toward soft, as opposed to hard, law.

The 2002 Dutch Euthanasia law applies to patients aged 12 years and older. Developments in end-of-life care and decision-making in the last decade have sparked the debate about usefulness and necessity to extend euthanasia to include children under 12 years of age. This paper describes two opposite positions: the affirmative position of a pediatrician and expert in pediatric palliative care and the negative position of a jurist and specialist in health law.

The main goal of the Book Review Section of Cambridge Quarterly is to cultivate a place where scholars can share their thoughts on broad philosophical topics sparked by noteworthy books. Instead of focusing narrowly on works in healthcare ethics, our reviews cast a wider net so that we may reflect on diverse ideas. Please email dien.ho@mcphs.edu if you have book recommendations or if you are interested in writing a review.

In “Nudging, Bullshitting, and the Meta-Nudge”, the author responds to William Simkulet’s claim that nudging is bullshitting (according to Harry Frankfurt’s analysis of bullshit and bullshitting), and therefore nudging during the process of informed consent renders consent invalid. The author argues that nudging is not necessarily bullshitting and then explains that although this issue is philosophically interesting, practically speaking, even if nudging is bullshitting, it does not follow that nudging necessarily renders informed consent invalid. This is obviously true in those situations in which nudging during the process of informed consent is unavoidable. The author concludes with a discussion of the meta-nudge and suggests that physicians can use the meta-nudge to eliminate or decrease the power of inappropriate, problematic, or undesirable nudges.

We see cases of moral luck arising in recent times, as we face the uncertainties of provisional rules for navigating the coronavirus pandemic. How should we respond to rule-breakers, and how should they view themselves, when they cause harm inadvertently? Although some argue that guilt is unnecessary for any harm that may result from luck, this paper takes moral luck seriously and encourages consideration of the benefits to be achieved by expressions of self-blame amidst troubling circumstances, from pure accidents to how we live during pandemics. It argues that rule-breakers in public health crises show us the importance of taking responsibility for our actions.

This paper takes under consideration a piece by Roger Crisp in which he questions what the problem of moral luck can teach us about COVID-19 lockdown rule-breakers. Taking the position that although such rule-breakers might seem to be new examples of moral luck, Crisp ends up denying the existence of moral luck and argues that moral luck is an outdated notion in so far as it relies on other questionable aspects of morality, that is, retributivist punishment and blame. Although the author agrees with Crisp that pandemic rule-breaker cases are putative examples of resultant moral luck, he proposes that Crisp has misconstrued what moral luck is and the paper examines in detail what he sees as the numerous problems with Crisp’s claims. The author concludes that Crisp’s analysis of pandemic rule-breaking does not shed any new light on the moral luck debate, and the difficult questions of luck, moral responsibility, and desert are not so easily resolved.

The philosophical debate concerning political exchange has largely been confined to debating the desirability of vote trading; where individuals can sell their votes or buy votes from others. However, I show that the vote credit systems prevalent in public choice theory entirely avoid the common objections to political exchange that afflict vote trading proposals. Namely, vote credit systems avoid equality concerns and inalienability concerns. I offer an alternative critique to formal mechanisms that encourage political exchange by drawing on the role that impartiality and impartial moral judgements play in democratic and electoral institutions.