Search

This paper problematizes the precision medicine approach embraced by the All of Us Research Program (US) and by Genomics England (UK) in terms of benefits distribution, by arguing that current "diversity and inclusion" efforts do not prevent exclusiveness, unless the framing and scope of the projects are revisited in public health terms. Grounded on document analysis and fieldwork interviews, this paper analyzes efforts to address potential patterns of exclusion upstream (from participating in precision medicine research) and downstream (from benefitting from precision medicine outputs). It argues that efforts for inclusion upstream are not corresponded downstream, and this unbalance jeopardizes the equitable capacities of the projects. It concludes that enhanced focus on socio-environmental determinants of health and aligned public health interventions as precision medicine outputs would be to the benefit of all and especially of those who are most at risk of (upstream as well as downstream) exclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both "public" and "engagement." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental health remains a niche topic in bioethics, despite being a prominent social determinant of health. In this paper we argue that if bioethicists are to take the project of health justice as a serious one, then we have to address environmental injustices and the threats they pose to our bioethics principles, health equity, and clinical care. To do this, we lay out three arguments supporting prioritizing environmental health in bioethics based on bioethics principles including a commitment to vulnerable populations and justice. We also highlight and advocate for environmental law efforts that align with these priorities, focusing specifically on the need for a right to a healthy environment. Our intention is to draw attention to the legal and ethical concepts that underlie the importance of a healthy environment, and urge bioethicists to prioritize both legal and ethical advocacy against environmental injustices in their practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a host of ethical challenges, but key among these has been the possibility that health care systems might need to ration scarce critical care resources. Rationing policies for pandemics differ by institution, health system, and applicable law. Most seem to agree that a patient's ability to benefit from treatment and to survive are first-order considerations. However, there is debate about what clinical measures should be used to make that determination and about other factors that might be ethically appropriate to consider. In this paper, we discuss resource allocation and several related ethical challenges to the healthcare system and society, including how to define benefit, how to handle informed consent, the special needs of pediatric patients, how to engage communities in these difficult decisions, and how to mitigate concerns of discrimination and the effects of structural inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on three topics: unilateral withdrawal, technological creep, and the role of proportionality in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) policy. It argues that current ethical constructs do not justify unilateral withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy, but it raises concerns about justifying ECMO as a form of destination therapy and the application of the principle of proportionality to balance evolving technologies and patient outcomes while mitigating technological creep.

The article discusses that the Brian Earp and his colleagues argue in this issue's target article that racial justice requires ending the War on Drugs (Earp, Lewis, and Hart 2021). It mentions that they are absolutely correct, and the article's title, the authors seem to recognize that ending the War on Drugs is ethically over determined.

While the clinical promise of much stem cell research remains largely theoretical, patients are nonetheless pursuing unproven stem cell therapies in jurisdictions around the world—a phenomenon referred to as “stem cell tourism.” These treatments are generally advertised on a direct-to-consumer basis via the Internet. Research shows portrayals of stem cell medicine on such websites are overly optimistic and the claims made are unsubstantiated by published evidence. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that parents are pursing these “treatments” for their children, despite potential physical and financial risk. Physicians are in a unique position as they can be expected to be involved in, or privy to, such decisions. In this paper, we consider what duties physicians may have toward minor patients whose parents/guardians wish to engage in stem cell tourism on their behalf. We use the Canadian perspective to address the broadly relevant issues raised by this trend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that a narrow view of justice dominates the bioethics literature. I urge a broader view. As bioethicists, we often conceive of justice using a medical model. This model focuses attention at a particular point in time, namely, when someone who is already sick seeks access to scarce or expensive services. A medical model asks how we can fairly distribute those services. The broader view I endorse requires looking upstream, and asking how disease and suffering came about. In contrast to a medical model, a social model of justice considers how social determinants affect the health of a population. For example, social factors such as access to clean drinking water, education, safe workplaces, and police protection, profoundly affect risk for disease and early death. I examine one important social determinant of health, health care coverage, to show the limits of a medical model and the merits of a broader view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about Chickenpox, exogenous boosting, and harmful injustices is a stimulating contribution to the growing vaccination ethics literature. Topics include benefits of varicella vaccination that they discuss, and key argument depends on a claim about social ontology and consequent obligations is contestable; and practical consequences for the maintenance of protection over a lifetime, including significant implications for the delivery of routine vaccination programs.

The article focuses on the importance of including undocumented immigrants in research while ensuring their protection and confidentiality. Topics covered include the vulnerability of undocumented immigrants; the role of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in providing guidelines and support; and the responsibilities of researchers in conducting ethical and inclusive studies with this population.

A response by Jeffrey P. Bishop and colleagues is presented about their article " Reviving the Conversation Around Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)/Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR)," is presented. They respond that their essay addresses the issues of modern hospital use of CPR and DNR orders, and the future of medical policy concerning CPR and DNR orders.

The article reflects on the paper "A Broader View of Justice," by Nancy Jecker, which focuses on the relationship between justice in healthcare and justice in the broader social conditions of society. It discusses issues addressed in the paper, including the failure of the bioethics literature to deal with the these broader social conditions and the need to pursue bioethics from a broader social paradigm of justice.

The article focuses on addressing concerns raised by Conley et al. regarding the Australian Citizens' Jury on Genome Editing (ACJ) and the proposed Global Citizens' Assembly on Genome Editing (GCA).

The article focuses on debates on access to medical products and disability bioethics that claims challenges and mentions appealing work on cognitive biases and theoretical work on problems of partial representation. Topics include optimism concerning sharing insights across experimental gaps, concerns raised by bioethics community on approaches weakening regulatory authority of U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), and providing access on evidence to patients to interfere with trials.

Prenatal genetic testing is becoming available for an increasingly broad set of diseases, and it is only a matter of time before parents can choose to test for hundreds, if not thousands, of genetic conditions in their fetuses. Should access to certain kinds of fetal genetic information be limited, and if so, on what basis? We evaluate a range of considerations including reproductive autonomy, parental rights, disability rights, and the rights and interests of the fetus as a potential future child. We conclude that parents should be able to access information that could be useful during pregnancy, but that testing for non-medical information should be limited. Next, we argue that the government lacks a compelling state interest in regulating prenatal genetic testing and propose that regulation should occur through medical professional organizations. Finally, we present a framework for determining what testing physicians should recommend, offer neutrally, or not offer at all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This target article considers the ethical implications of providing prenatal diagnosis (PND) and antenatal screening services to detect fetal abnormalities in jurisdictions that prohibit abortion for these conditions. This unusual health policy context is common in the Latin American region. Congenital conditions are often untreated or under-treated in developing countries due to limited health resources, leading many women/couples to prefer termination of affected pregnancies. Three potential harms derive from the provision of PND in the absence of legal and safe abortion for these conditions: psychological distress, unjust distribution of burdens between socio-economic classes, and financial burdens for families and society. We present Iran as a comparative case study where recognition of these ethical issues has led to the liberalization of abortion laws for fetuses with thalassemia. We argue that physicians, geneticists and policymakers have an ethical and professional duty of care to advocate for change in order to ameliorate these harms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2019, several US states passed "heartbeat" bills. Should such bills go into effect, they would outlaw abortion once an embryonic heartbeat can be detected, thereby severely limiting an individual's access to abortion. Many states allow health care professionals to refuse to provide an abortion for reasons of conscience. Yet heartbeat bills do not include a positive conscience clause that would allow health care professionals to provide an abortion for reasons of conscience. I argue that this asymmetry is unjustified. The same criteria that justify protecting conscientious refusals to provide abortion also justify protecting positive conscientious appeals regarding abortion. Thus, if the law provides legal exemptions for health care professionals who, as a matter of conscience, refuse to provide abortions where it is legal, it should also provide exemptions for health care professionals who, as a matter of conscience, feel obligated to provide abortions where it is illegal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, laws and policies to criminalize drug use or possession were rooted in explicit racism, and they continue to wreak havoc on certain racialized communities. We are a group of bioethicists, drug experts, legal scholars, criminal justice researchers, sociologists, psychologists, and other allied professionals who have come together in support of a policy proposal that is evidence-based and ethically recommended. We call for the immediate decriminalization of all so-called recreational drugs and, ultimately, for their timely and appropriate legal regulation. We also call for criminal convictions for nonviolent offenses pertaining to the use or possession of small quantities of such drugs to be expunged, and for those currently serving time for these offenses to be released. In effect, we call for an end to the "war on drugs." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses a report on the duties of research funders to consider who benefits from the knowledge generated from research to address broader societal issues and concerns. Health equity is defined as everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be healthy. Non-profit organizations have a constitutive duty to the state and the general population due to the tax exemptions given by the government. Four research programs emphasizing the translation of research into action are outlined.

The article presents the discussion on noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) being implemented as a first-trimester prenatal screening modality in healthcare systems around the world. Topics include using NIPT for detecting copy number variants, single-gene disorders, and microdeletion syndromes; and being useful for reproductive decision-making providing reasons for women or couples considering the termination of pregnancy.

The article offers information on Lewis Carroll's poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter" from his Through the Looking Glass, and "The time has come to talk of many things" but of the proposal in the target article of "reestablishing the relationship between theological and secular bioethics. Topics include prevailing ethic has practical virtuous judgement and Hippocrates' belief that medical decision making was best left to the doctor.

The article examines concerns on the use of surveillance data and considerations on evolving HIV policy and emerging questions regarding COVID-19 surveillance. It offers an overview of the evolution of HIV surveillance in the U.S. It cites arguments on research by Molldrem and Smith regarding cluster detection and response related to HIV molecular surveillance which include its link to factors, such as racism, that hinder access to healthcare and linking people with HIV to social supports.

In the United States, clinical HIV data reported to surveillance systems operated by jurisdictional departments of public health are re-used for epidemiology and prevention. In 2018, all jurisdictions began using HIV genetic sequence data from clinical drug resistance tests to identify people living with HIV in "clusters" of others with genetically similar strains. This is called "molecular HIV surveillance" (MHS). In 2019, "cluster detection and response" (CDR) programs that re-use MHS data became the "fourth pillar" of the national HIV strategy. Public health re-uses of HIV data are done without consent and are a source of concern among stakeholders. This article presents three cases that illuminate bioethical challenges associated with re-uses of clinical HIV data for public health. We focus on evidence-base, risk-benefit ratio, determining directionality of HIV transmission, consent, and ethical re-use. The conclusion offers strategies for "HIV data justice." The essay contributes to a "bioethics of the oppressed." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some societies tolerate or encourage high levels of chickenpox infection among children to reduce rates of shingles among older adults. This tradeoff is unethical. The varicella zoster virus (VZV) causes both chickenpox and shingles. After people recover from chickenpox, VZV remains in their nerve cells. If their immune systems become unable to suppress the virus, they develop shingles. According to the Exogenous Boosting Hypothesis (EBH), a person's ability to keep VZV suppressed can be 'boosted' through exposure to active chickenpox infections. We argue that even if this hypothesis were true, immunization policies that discourage routine childhood varicella vaccination in order to prevent shingles for other people are unethical. Such policies harm children and treat them as mere means for the benefit of others, and are inconsistent with how parents should treat their children and physicians should treat their patients. These policies also seem incompatible with institutional transparency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global contagion of unprecedented proportions and health, economic, and social consequences. As with many health problems, its impact is uneven. This article argues the COVID-19 pandemic is a global health injustice due to moral failures of national governments and international organizations to prepare for, prevent and control it. Global and national health communities had a moral obligation to act in accordance with the current state of knowledge of pandemic preparedness. This obligation—a positive duty to develop and implement systems to reduce threats to and safeguard individuals' and, communities' abilities to flourish—stems from theories of global health justice and governance. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed and amplified the fragility and deficiencies in our global and domestic health institutions and systems. Moving forward, positive public health ethics is needed to set ethical standards for building and operating robust public health systems for resilient individuals and communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the allocation of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic. Topics discussed include implication of the increasing demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators in response to the growing number of critically ill COVID-19 patients, recommended strategy to prevent bedside physicians from experiencing conflicts of conscience, and negative claims of conscience and requests for accommodation.

An editorial is presented on arguments for physician aid-in-dying (PAD) for psychiatric disorders. Topics discussed include permitting PPAD would not have negative policy and practice implications serious enough to outweigh the intended merits; conflicts with the practice of involuntary commitment in psychiatry; and parity argument has the following form: If PAD for terminal physical illness is justified on the basis of suffering.

The article focuses on the Wrong Argument for a Bad Law. Topics discussed include the passage specifies that qualified HCPs are permitted to provide an assisted death but are not obligated to; and the legalization makes the procedure permissible but not obligatory; and Clarifications of this sort neither grant exemptions since everyone is exempted from participation if they so choose nor thwart the purpose of the law.

The article discusses the case of Doctor Jumana Nagarwala, who was arrested at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, in April, 2017 Michigan for practicing Female Genital Cutting (FGC) at the clinic on several female minors, and was tried under the U.S. federal Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) law. Topics discussed include religious perspectives on FGC; cultural boundaries of the medicine; and violation of professional ethics, and human rights by the physicians.

Serious ethical violations in medicine, such as sexual abuse, criminal prescribing of opioids, and unnecessary surgeries, directly harm patients and undermine trust in the profession of medicine. We review the literature on violations in medicine and present an analysis of 280 cases. Nearly all cases involved repeated instances (97%) of intentional wrongdoing (99%), by males (95%) in nonacademic medical settings (95%), with oversight problems (89%) and a selfish motive such as financial gain or sex (90%). More than half of cases involved a wrongdoer with a suspected personality disorder or substance use disorder (51%). Despite clear patterns, no factors provide readily observable red flags, making prevention difficult. Early identification and intervention in cases requires significant policy shifts that prioritize the safety of patients over physician interests in privacy, fair processes, and proportionate disciplinary actions. We explore a series of 10 questions regarding policy, oversight, discipline, and education options. Satisfactory answers to these questions will require input from diverse stakeholders to help society negotiate effective and ethically balanced solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As genomic science has evolved, so have policy and practice debates about how to describe and evaluate the ways in which genomic information is treated for individuals, institutions, and society. The term genetic exceptionalism, describing the concept that genetic information is special or unique, and specifically different from other kinds of medical information, has been utilized widely, but often counterproductively in these debates. We offer genomic contextualism as a new term to frame the characteristics of genomic science in the debates. Using stasis theory to draw out the important connection between definitional issues and resulting policies, we argue that the framework of genomic contextualism is better suited to evaluating genomics and its policy-relevant features to arrive at more productive discussion and resolve policy debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early intervention (EI) aims to identify children or families at risk of poor health, and take preventative measures at an early stage, when intervention is more likely to succeed. EI is concerned with the just distribution of "life chances," so that all children are given fair opportunity to realize their potential and lead a good life; EI policy design, therefore, invokes ethical questions about the balance of responsibilities between the state, society, and individuals in addressing inequalities. We analyze a corpus of EI policy guidance to investigate explicit and implicit ethical arguments about who should be held morally responsible for safeguarding child health and well-being. We examine the implications of these claims and explore what it would mean to put the proposed policies into practice. We conclude with some remarks about the useful role that philosophical analysis can play in EI policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about the tradeoff between varicella infection among children and herpes zoster among older adults is unethical in deciding whether to encourage or discourage routine childhood chickenpox vaccination. Topics include raise a number of important ethical questions about the objectives of public health, health messaging, intergenerational fairness, and democratic transparency; and addition to the vaccination ethics literature to widen the discussion from vaccine mandates.

The article present discussion by McCoy and colleagues (2020) of partial representation in the autism community offers rich insights into the difficult question of how we can best represent the entire autism spectrum. Topic include in order to represent the entire autism spectrum, care must be taken in how the cure/acceptance debate about autism is set up.

Biomedical diagnostic science is a great deal less successful than we've been willing to acknowledge in bioethics, and this fact has far-reaching ethical implications. In this article I consider the surprising prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms, and the term's ambiguous meaning. Then I frame central questions that remain answered in this context with respect to informed consent, autonomy, and truth-telling. Finally, I show that while considerable attention in this area is given to making sure not to provide biological care to patients without a need, comparatively little is given to the competing, ethically central task of making sure never to obstruct access to biological care for those with diagnostically confusing biological conditions. I suggest this problem arises from confusion about the philosophical value of vagueness when it comes to the line between biological and psychosocial needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The consideration of racial differences in the biology of disease and treatment options is a hallmark of modern medicine. However, this time-honored medical tradition has no scientific basis, and the premise itself, that is, the existence of biological differences between the commonly known races, is false inasmuch as races are only sociocultural constructions. It is time to rid medical research of the highly damaging exercise of searching for supposed racial differences in the biological manifestations of disease. The practice not only condoned but required by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of utilizing racial identification as a demographic characteristic with assumed biological implications is at best badly flawed, and at worst unintentionally contributes to perpetuating the fallacy of natural differences between persons of different skin color, which has been used in the past to advance the cause of racial discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many adoptees face a number of challenges relating to separation from biological parents during the adoption process, including issues concerning identity, intimacy, attachment, and trust, as well as (for older adopted children) language and other cultural challenges. One common health challenge faced by adoptees involves lack of access to genetic-relative family health history (GRFHx). Lack of GRFHx represents a disadvantage due to a reduced capacity to identify diseases and recommend appropriate screening for conditions for which the adopted person may be at increased risk. In this article, we draw out common features of traditionally understood “health disparities” in order to identify analogous features in the context of adoptees’ lack of GRFHx. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Governments must determine the legal procedures by which their residents are registered, or can register, as organ donors. Provided that governments recognize that people have a right to determine what happens to their organs after they die, there are four feasible options to choose from: opt-in, opt-out, mandated active choice, and voluntary active choice. We investigate the ethics of these policies' use of nudges to affect organ donor registration rates. We argue that the use of nudges in this context is morally problematic. It is disrespectful of people's autonomy to take advantage of their cognitive biases since doing so involves bypassing, not engaging, their rational capacities. We conclude that while mandated active choice policies are not problem free—they are coercive, after all—voluntary active choice, opt-in, and opt-out policies are potentially less respectful of people's autonomy since their use of nudges could significantly affect people's decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses that a useful framework for evaluating health-related nudges in an attempt to bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical literatures on nudging; and mentions nudges should allow people to promote their own ends and not substitute the values and desired ends of the nudger for those of the nudgee.

The article offers information on the Genetic Exceptionalism. Topics discussed include Genetic testing was traditionally limited to targeted testing for rare monogenic conditions, in high-risk or symptomatic individuals; mentions Genetic technology advances more rapidly than updates in health professionals training about genetic testing; and also mentions most health professionals have not had adequate training to interpret genetic test results and genetic information.

The article discusses the role of social class in the deaths of despair in the U.S. with reference to whites affected by the opioid crisis in the past. It examines the relationship between news media portrayal of addiction and trends in drug poisoning deaths. It refers to the National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Multiple Cause-of-Death files representing age-adjusted all-drug poisoning rates from 1969 to 2016.

The author presents a response to insights about his paper on policy development for health care decision making in critical-care settings. Topics covered include the importance of enabling the maintenance of trust among parties in decision making, the capacity of health professional organizations in developing authoritarian policy statements for critical care and the use of the scope of customary critical care practices plus as part of a dispute resolution process.

The article reflects on the paper "A Broader View of Justice," by Nancy Jecker, which focuses on the need for a new attitude on medical policy and access to healthcare in the U.S. It talks about the lack of moral vision in the representative health plans of the U.S. presidential candidates for 2008. It also discusses Jecker's notion of human agency and the provision of basic health services in a democratic society.

The article reflects on the need to address the social determinants of health beyond the theory of justice. It comments on the paper "A Broader View of Justice," by Nancy Jecker, which talks about the need to focus on the normative status of health disparities in health care policy. The role of interpersonal attitudes in creating health disparities is also discussed.

The article reflects on issues regarding the need for a broader view of health care policy in the U.S. It talks about the paper "A Broader View of Justice," by N. S. Jecker, which discusses the attention on justice conceived as showing respect for people and the need to refocus efforts in health care reform.

Is it a stronger interference with people's freedom to withdraw options they currently have than to withhold similar options they do not have? Drawing on recent theorizing about sociopolitical freedom, this article identifies considerations that often make this the case for public policy. However, when applied to tobacco control, these considerations are shown to give us at best only very weak freedom-based reason to prioritize the status quo. This supports a popular argument for so-called “endgame” tobacco control measures: If we believe that cigarettes would and should be withheld from entering markets in hypothetical scenarios in which they do not yet exist, then we also have reason to seek their abolition in situations, such as ours, in which cigarettes do exist—if necessary by banning their sale. The same considerations are then used to disarm objections that have recently been raised to using nudges in public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of empirical research examines the effects of the so-called “social determinants of health” (SDH) on health and health inequalities. Several high-profile publications have issued policy recommendations to reduce health inequalities based on a specific interpretation of this empirical research as well as a set of normative assumptions. This article questions the framework defined by these assumptions by focusing on two issues: first, the normative judgments about the (un)fairness of particular health inequalities; and second, the policy recommendations issued on this basis. We argue that the normative underpinnings of the approach are insufficiently supported and that the policy recommendations do not necessarily follow from the arguments provided. Furthermore, while many of the policies recommended—such as improving people's living conditions and reducing inequalities in wealth and power—are justified in their own right, the way these recommendations are tied to health is problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Various kinds of alcohol and drug testing, such as preemployment, routine, and for-cause testing, are commonly performed by employers. While healthcare organizations usually require preemployment drug testing, they vary on whether personnel will be subjected to further testing. Recently, a call has gone out for postincident testing among physicians who are involved in serious, preventable events, especially ones leading to a patient's death. This article will offer a number of counterarguments to that proposal and discuss an alternate approach: that health institutions can better improve patient safety and employees’ well-being by implementing an organizational policy of “speaking up” when system operators notice work behaviors or environmental factors that threaten harm or peril. The article will conclude with a description of various strategies that facilitate speaking up, and why the practice constitutes a superior alternative to mandatory alcohol and drug testing in the wake of serious, harm-causing medical error. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]