Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This article addresses references to people's natural environments in some of the central declarative statements that shape social work worldwide. Four types of documents were analyzed, including statements associated with the Global Definition of Social Work, the Global Standards for Social Work Education and Training, the Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles, and the Grand Challenges for Social Work initiative. The analysis was driven by a critical-interpretive approach, seeking explicit and possibly implied references to nature and the environment across documents, with special attention to themes concerning the relationship between micro and macro perspectives, disciplinarity and inter- or transdisciplinarity, and relations between humankind and nature. In general, direct references to social work's possible intersections with issues related to nature and the natural environment were scarce in the materials examined. That having been said, our analysis did find that ecocentered interpretations enable locating prospective "bridges" for the incorporation of deeper ecological perceptions of social work into statements. Such findings constitute a call to action, and the possible implications of continuing to broadly disregard ecological aspects of social work in core materials published by influential professional institutions are discussed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The amendment to the collective agreement is intended to significantly improve the working conditions of physicians and includes longer-term duty scheduling, work on a maximum of two weekends per month, less overtime. Smaller hospitals often have problems implementing these requirements and have to make compromises. At least the overtime is now better paid-overall, an improvement in working conditions can only be achieved by increasing the number of staff, then better and more intensive training is also possible.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

After the Young Urologists' Working Group was founded in April 2018, the taskforce "Work-Life-Balance" was set up. The Working Group deals with the following topics.Most recently, a discussion guideline was developed for requests for part-time or parental leave. The guideline recommends to conduct the interview as soon as possible and in a structured manner. The maximum and minimum goal of working hours should be clearly and transparently defined.The inconsistent regulations on the crediting of absences during continuing medical education in the various federal states are also discussed as a further problem.Currently, the task force "Work-Life-Balance" is conducting and evaluating a survey on the topic of surgery during pregnancy and risk assessment of the workplace for pregnant women.The survey's results are expected to yield recommendations for the clinical practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, pre-clinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g. gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g. safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.

RESUMEN

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding human GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.