Associate Professor of Medical Ethics
Senior Lecturer in Medical Ethics
Ulrik Kihlbom is associate professor and senior lecturer in medical ethics at the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics. He is currently involved in a five-year project looking at how and when to include patient preferences in the life cycle of medical products (PREFER). He is also responsible for the Medical ethics & law program at the Medical school as well as for an advanced level course on public health ethics. In recent years, he has worked with bioethical issues related to reproduction, ethical particularism, family ethics and autonomy.
Phone: +46 18 471 6233
- Karin Schölin Bywall: The value of patient preferences in drug development for rheumatoid arthritis
- Ashkan Atry: Is Fair Play Compatible with Doping in Sport? (PhD 2013)
- Tove Godskesen: Factors associated with participation in phase1 and phase 3 oncology trials (PhD 2015)
Recently in the media
- Ansvar bör även läggas på forskningsledaren, Svenska Dagbladet Debatt, 16 March 2016
- Efter skandalen: ”Gråzoner sätt blanda bort korten”, Svenska Dagbladet Debatt, 10 March 2016
Managing genetic risk information
Research generates huge amounts of genetic information. How should we handle it? That is what we are trying to find out in a large international research project.
Giving patients a voice in drug development
PREFER is a five year public-private research project where academic researchers and the pharmaceutical industry work together to find out when and where patients want, can and should be involved in drug development
News from the PREFER project
- PREFER annual meeting 2017 2017-07-05
- Data management in PREFER 2017-07-05
- Patient preferences in healthcare decision-making 2017-05-16
- PREFER PhD project on rheumatoid arthritis 2017-04-06
- Editorial in Patient: Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle 2017-03-16
- New research initiative on patient preferences 2016-11-16
- ETHICS BLOG: How to listen to (the right) patient voices? 2016-10-25
- Giving patients a voice in drug development 2016-10-18
- Value in Health publishes theme section on patient preferences 2016-10-05
- PREFER kick-off 27-28 October 2016-09-30
- HTA and Payers Stakeholder Advisory Group formed 2016-09-02
- Age, education and health literacy affects how people understand risk 2012-09-01
- Patient advisory group formed 2016-09-01
- The science of patient input 2016-08-31
Particularism in bioethics
This network brings together theorists and practitioners from Philosophy, Psychology and Health Care.
We are part of an international network on ethics of families.
Karin Schölin Bywall will look at how rheumatoid arthritis patient preferences can provide added value in regulatory decision making in the drug development process.
Ethics & law for medical students
Students learn to analyze ethical and legal problems in medical practice and argue for their standpoint.
Public Health Ethics
Study public health ethics this autumn! We offer a 7,5 credit course to advanced level students. You need to speak Swedish. Application deadline: April 15 2016.
Ulrik Kihlbom on the Ethics Blog
- Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, . vol. 121, ss. 289-294 DOI Download fulltext
- Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, . vol. 121, ss. 295-298 DOI
- Journal of Risk Research . DOI
Swedish healthcare providers' perceptions of preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS)—a qualitative study.(2016). Journal of Community Genetics, . vol. 7, ss. 203-214 DOI
Differences in trial knowledge and motives for participation among cancer patients in phase 3 clinical trials.(2016). European Journal of Cancer Care, vol. 25, ss. 516-523 DOI
- Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 41 DOI
Hope for a cure and altruism are the main motives behind participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials.(2015). European Journal of Cancer Care, vol. 24, ss. 133-141 DOI
Phase 1 clinical trials in end-stage cancer: patient understanding of trial premises and motives for participation.(2013). Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 21, ss. 3137-3142 DOI
Cheating is the name of the game: Conventional cheating arguments fail to articulate moral responses to doping.(2013). Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research, vol. 59, ss. 21-32 DOI
Medical ethics, decision-making and patient preferences
Health care and drug development raises several philosophical questions that require practical solutions: How can patients become informed enough to answer questions in a way that is meaningful? How do we make genetic risk information understandable and meaningful? Here, Ulrik Kihlbom reflects on what happens at the intersection of philosophy and empirical work.