Alberto Giubilini is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow on the Oxford Martin Programme on Collective Responsibility for Infectious Disease. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Milan, and prior to joining the Uehiro Centre he worked in Australia at Monash University, University of Melbourne and Charles Sturt University. He has published on different topics in bioethics and philosophy, including the ethics of vaccination, procreative choices, end of life decisions, organ donations, conscientious objection in healthcare, the concept of conscience, human enhancement, and the role of intuitions and of moral disgust in ethical arguments. He has published a book on The Ethics of Vaccination (Palgrave MacMillan 2019) and one in Italian on the ethics of end of life decisions (Morals in the Time of Bioethics, Le Lettere 2011), and he co-edited a book on The Ethics of Human Enhancement (Oxford University Press 2016) More information and a full CV can be found at his Academia webpage, here.
Antibiotic Resistance As A Tragedy Of The Commons: An Ethical Argument For A Tax On Antibiotic Use In Humans
Demandingness and public health
GIUBILINI, A, SAVULESCU, J
Moral Philosophy and Politics
Giubilini, A, Minerva, F
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
Impartiality and infectious disease: Prioritizing individuals versus the collective in antibiotic prescription.
Dao, B, Douglas, T, Giubilini, A, Savulescu, J, Selgelid, M, Faber, NS
AJOB Empir Bioeth
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health disaster driven largely by antibiotic use in human health care. Doctors considering whether to prescribe antibiotics face an ethical conflict between upholding individual patient health and advancing public health aims. Existing literature mainly examines whether patients awaiting consultations desire or expect to receive antibiotic prescriptions, but does not report views of the wider public regarding conditions under which doctors should prescribe antibiotics. It also does not explore the ethical significance of public views or their sensitivity to awareness of AMR risks or the standpoint (self-interested or impartial) taken by participants. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with a sample of the U.S. public (n = 158). Participants were asked to indicate what relative priority should be given to individual patients and society-at-large from various standpoints and in various contexts, including antibiotic prescription. RESULTS: Of the participants, 50.3% thought that doctors should generally prioritize individual patients over society, whereas 32.0% prioritized society over individual patients. When asked in the context of AMR, 39.2% prioritized individuals whereas 45.5% prioritized society. Participants were significantly less willing to prioritize society over individuals when they themselves were the patient, both in general (p = .001) and in relation to AMR specifically (p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Participants' attitudes were more oriented to society and sensitive to collective responsibility when informed about the social costs of antibiotic use and when considered from a third-person rather than first-person perspective. That is, as participants came closer to taking the perspective of an informed and impartial "ideal observer," their support for prioritizing society increased. Our findings suggest that, insofar as antibiotic policies and practices should be informed by attitudes that are impartial and well-informed, there is significant support for prioritizing society.
Drug resistance, antibacterial agents, bacterial, drug resistance, ethics, medical overuse, microbial, patient preference
Regulating Genome Editing: For an Enlightened Democratic Governance.
Cavaliere, G, Devolder, K, Giubilini, A
Camb Q Healthc Ethics
How should we regulate genome editing in the face of persistent substantive disagreement about the moral status of this technology and its applications? In this paper, we aim to contribute to resolving this question. We first present two diametrically opposed possible approaches to the regulation of genome editing. A first approach, which we refer to as "elitist," is inspired by Joshua Greene's work in moral psychology. It aims to derive at an abstract theoretical level what preferences people would have if they were committed to implementing public policies regulating genome editing in a context of ethical pluralism. The second approach, which we refer to as the democratic approach, defended by Francoise Baylis and Sheila Jasanoff et al., emphasizes the importance of including the public's expressed attitudes in the regulation of genome editing. After pointing out a serious shortcoming with each of these approaches, we propose our own favored approach-the "enlightened democracy" approach-which attempts to combine the strengths of the elitist and democratic approaches while avoiding their weaknesses.
democracy, genome editing, moral pluralism, moral psychology, public engagement, public policy
Thus, for instance, in the US, where child vaccination is a condition for enrolling
children in day care or state schools, the ... Largent (2017) have argued,
burdensome exemption procedures are likely to be the most ethical vaccination
Challenging Human Enhancement
The ethics of human enhancement: understanding the debate
The Ethics of Human Enhancement
Clarke, S, Savulescu, J, Coady, CAJ, Giubilini, A, Sanyal, S