Search

Direct interaction between pharmaceutical representatives and consumers is an issue that is still under-researched. In fact, the underlying ethical issues are completely absent from the radar of regulators. However, this type of communication without a mediating interface (such as a TV broadcaster or an electronic platform) or an intermediary (healthcare professionals) provides a space where consumers are highly exposed to industry influences. While the putative aim of those activities is to educate patients about their health condition, the management of their symptoms and the available treatments, the industry is seeking to replace the traditional role of health professionals. A case study, involving face-to-face interactions, allows a better understanding and provides clarifications to show that it is not the industry’s role to provide health information to consumers. Mechanisms are suggested to support government agencies in ethically regulating this practice.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) may revolutionize the healthcare system, leading to enhance efficiency by automatizing routine tasks and decreasing health-related costs, broadening access to healthcare delivery, targeting more precisely patient needs, and assisting clinicians in their decision-making. For these benefits to materialize, governments and health authorities must regulate AI, and conduct appropriate health technology assessment (HTA). Many authors have highlighted that AI health technologies (AIHT) challenge traditional evaluation and regulatory processes. To inform and support HTA organizations and regulators in adapting their processes to AIHTs, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on the challenges posed by AIHTs in HTA and health regulation. Our research question was: What makes artificial intelligence exceptional in HTA? The current body of literature appears to portray AIHTs as being exceptional to HTA. This exceptionalism is expressed along 5 dimensions: 1) AIHT’s distinctive features; 2) their systemic impacts on health care and the health sector; 3) the increased expectations towards AI in health; 4) the new ethical, social and legal challenges that arise from deploying AI in the health sector; and 5) the new evaluative constraints that AI poses to HTA. Thus, AIHTs are perceived as exceptional because of their technological characteristics and potential impacts on society at large. As AI implementation by governments and health organizations carries risks of generating new, and amplifying existing, challenges, there are strong arguments for taking into consideration the exceptional aspects of AIHTs, especially as their impacts on the healthcare system will be far greater than that of drugs and medical devices. As AIHTs begin to be increasingly introduced into the health care sector, there is a window of opportunity for HTA agencies and scholars to consider AIHTs’ exceptionalism and to work towards only deploying clinically, economically, socially acceptable AIHTs in the health care system.

While genetic testing may be the gateway to the future of medicine, it also poses challenges for individuals, especially in terms of differentiated treatments on the basis of their genetic characteristics. The fear of unwanted disclosure to insurers and the possibility of genetic discrimination can hamper the recruitment of individuals for clinical research that involves genetic testing. Precision medicine initiatives, such as All of Us, are proliferating in the United States. In order to succeed, however, they must ensure that the millions of Americans recruited to share their genetic data are not penalized with regard to life, disability and long-term insurance coverage. In this Perspective, we discuss several initiatives adopted by countries around the world, such as the United Kingdom and France, that better balance the interests of insurers and research subjects, and explain how the United States might learn from them. We call for regulatory and industry leadership to come together to establish a voluntary moratorium on insurance pricing with the aim of protecting research participants.

There has been increasing attention to financial conflicts of interest (COI) in public health research and policy making, with concerns that some decisions are not in the public interest. One notable problematic area is expert advisory committee (EAC). While COI management has focused on disclosure, it could go further and assess experts' degree of (in)dependence with commercial interests. We analyzed COI disclosures of members of Québec's immunization EAC (in Canada) using (In)DepScale, a tool we developed for assessing experts' level of (in)dependence. We found great variability of independence with industry and that companies with the highest vaccine sales were predominantly associated with disclosed COIs. We argue that EACs can use the (In)DepScale to better assess and disclose the COIs that affect their experts. Going forward our scale could help manage risk and select members who are less conflicted to foster a culture of transparency and trust in advisors and policy-makers.

Citizen Science refers to the consultation, participation, engagement or involvement of the general public in research. Rationales for this interaction include increased public access and involvement of citizens in research, immersion of community values relevant to research, outreach and educational potential with the public, and ultimately, the democratization of science. This paper focuses on the specific subset of citizen science that seeks to engage "patient partners" in health research to gain the valuable experiential knowledge of those living with a disease. Greater patient engagement in research (PER) can provide researchers with insights about citizen values and needs relevant to determining research priorities, methodology, applications and ethical parameters; this would ideally lead to more effective real-world applications. Over the last decade, projects involving patients partners in research (PPR) have varied from mere tokenism and undervaluation to full involvement and empowerment of patient participants - the former, a subject of criticism, and the latter, promoted as an ideal. In this article, we will argue that the value of that experiential knowledge from patient partners in research should not only be acknowledged through its ongoing use, but also through recognition of participants who contribute to the creation and application of new knowledge. We will explore types of recognition that might be attributed to PPR, including scientific recognition; financial recognition or reward; personal and altruistic recognition; and the benefial outcomes of research applications. We will also consider whether such types of recognition could be applied to the broader field of citizen science.

Over the last decade there has been a noticeable increase in attention, on the part of public health scholars and professionals, to the important ethical challenges that arise in the context of public health policy, practice and research. This has arguably been a driver for the development of public health ethics (PHE) as both a specialized field of study in bioethics and a subject for professional education. But how is PHE taught in public health programs and schools? Are current educational approaches sufficient to provide future professionals with the necessary tools to address the diverse ethical challenges they will encounter? In this article, we examine the international public health and bioethics literatures regarding PHE education in public health programs and schools. Specifically, we 1) summarize the results from studies that describe PHE education in the United States, Europe, Canada and in some developing countries, 2) explore current attitudes and educational approaches toward ethics curricula in public health, and 3) identify and discuss reported barriers to PHE education. We conclude with some general recommendations and a research agenda to guide future work on implementing PHE into different public health programs.

In Québec, the Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information provides an exception to transparency to most public institutions where public health research is conducted by allowing them to not disclose their uses of personal data (often collected without the consent of those being studied). This exceptionalism is ethically problematic due to important concerns (e.g., protection of privacy and potential harms of secondary uses of data) and we argue that all those who conduct research should be transparent and accountable for the work they do in the public interest., Au Québec, la Loi sur l’accès aux documents des organismes publics et sur la protection des renseignements personnels offre une exception en matière de transparence à la plupart des institutions publiques où la recherche en santé publique est menée en leur permettant de ne pas divulguer leurs utilisations de données à caractère personnel (souvent collectées sans le consentement des personnes étudiées). Cette exception est éthiquement problématique en raison de préoccupations importantes (ex.: la protection de la vie privée et les inconvénients potentiels des utilisations secondaires de données) et nous soutenons que tous ceux qui mènent des recherches doivent être transparents et responsables du travail qu’ils accomplissent dans l’intérêt public.

When decision-makers are engaged in a polarized discourse and leaving aside evidence-based recommendations, is there a role for researchers in the dissemination of this scientific evidence to the general public as a means to counterbalance the debate? In response to the controversial Bill 10 in Quebec, we developed and posted a knowledge transfer video on YouTube to help stimulate critical public debate. This article explains our approach and methodology, and the impact of the video, which, in the space of two weeks, had more than 9,500 views, demonstrating the pertinence of such initiatives. We conclude with recommendations for other research groups to engage in public debates.

Promotion of prescription drugs may appear to be severely limited in some jurisdictions due to restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA). However, in most jurisdictions, strategies exist to raise consumer awareness about prescription drugs, notably through the deployment of direct-to-consumer information (DTCI) campaigns that encourage patients to seek help for particular medical conditions. In Canada, DTCI is presented by industry and regulated by Health Canada as being purely informational activities, but their design and integration in broader promotional campaigns raise very similar ethical concerns as those associated with DTCA. Specifically, DTCI can be an effective means of familiarizing the public with the scope and benefits of a particular prescription drug and so, like DTCA, can promote increased patient-consumer demand and thus a problematic rise in the prescribing and use of medications that may be neither the most appropriate nor the most cost-effective. Yet, with DTCI the industry is playing within the existing rules and regulations set by health regulators. To respond appropriately to this regulatory incoherence, we argue that DTCI should be regulated as a type of direct-to-consumer indirect advertising. Even if the case and specific regulations presented here are Canadian, the implications extend to every country that has a partial or total prohibition on DTCA.

Although there is consensus on the fact that ionizing radiation used in radiological examinations can affect health, the stochastic (random) nature of risk makes it difficult to anticipate and assess specific health implications for patients. The issue of radiation protection is peculiar as any dosage received in life is cumulative, the sensitivity to radiation is highly variable from one person to another, and between 20 % and 50 % of radiological examinations appear not to be necessary. In this context, one might reasonably assume that information and patient consent would play an important role in regulating radiological practice. However, there is to date no clear consensus regarding the nature and content of—or even need for—consent by patients exposed to ionizing radiation. While law and ethics support the same principles for respecting the dignity of the person (inviolability and integrity), in the context of radiology practice, they do not provide a consistent message to guide clinical decision-making. This article analyzes the issue of healthcare professionals’ duty to inform and obtain patient consent for radiological examinations. Considering that both law and ethics have as one of their aims to protect vulnerable populations, it is important that they begin to give greater attention to issues raised by the use of ionizing radiation in medicine. While the situation in Canada serves as a backdrop for a reflective analysis of the problem, the conclusions are pertinent for professional practice in other jurisdictions because the principles underlying health law and jurisprudence are fairly general.

In deploying a public health ethics framework to analyze mandatory influenza vaccination programs (MVP) for health care personnel, Antommaria (2013) provides a new perspective that substantially en...