Search

The "Framework for the Ethical Conduct of Public Health Initiatives", developed by Public Health Ontario, is a practical guide for assessing the ethical implications of evidence-generating public health initiatives, whether research or non-research activities, involving people, their biological materials or their personal information. The Framework is useful not only to those responsible for determining the ethical acceptability of an initiative, but also to investigators planning new public health initiatives. It is informed by a theoretical approach that draws on widely shared bioethical principles. Two considerations emerge from both the theoretical framework and its practical application: the line between practice and research is often blurred; public health ethics and biomedical research ethics are based on the same common heritage of values.

The issues raised by public health surveillance are typical of those involved in public health ethics. Surveillance calls, in particular, for the balancing of individual rights and collective interests, which are often in conflict. One of the issues most closely linked with public health surveillance is the collection and use of personal data for purposes of public concern. Numerous frameworks (proposed by institutions, working groups or single individuals) are available for use in assessing the ethical correctness of public health interventions in general or, more specifically, of public health surveillance. While heterogeneous in nature, these frameworks are nonetheless built on a foundation of common values that are similar to those typically encountered in a clinical setting and to which bioethics has traditionally devoted considerable attention. However, it is necessary to apply these values to the specific context of public health, where the focus is more on the interests of the public at large than on those of the individual.

The "public health" perspective is different from the ″patient-centred″ clinical perspective for various reasons. Tensions between collective and individual interests are unavoidable in public health. Intersections between public health ethics and clinical bioethics can be traced to a set of duties which derive from respect of the person. Human rights and solidarity are "person-centred" cornerstones of both clinical and public health ethics.

General concepts about medical disasters, public health and triage are outlined. Triage is described in the context of public health emergencies and disaster settings, and the main ethical values at stake in triage are discussed. Possible conflicts between competing values are outlined. Special attention is given to possible conflicts between the protection of individual interests (typical of clinical ethics), and the pursuit of collective interests (typical of public health and triage). Hippocratic ethics is compared to utilitarian ethics and to perspectives that emphasize the principle of justice. Three ethical attitudes are suggested that may contribute to a resolution of competing values: protection of human dignity, precaution and, especially, solidarity. Personalism promotes the collective good by safeguarding and giving value to the well-being of each individual. A personalistic perspective is suggested as a way to deepen the concept of solidarity as a pillar both of clinical and public health ethics.

In public health ethics, as in bioethics, utilitarian approaches usually prevail, followed by Kantian and communitarian foundations. If one considers the nature and core functions of public health, which are focused on a population perspective, utilitarianism seems still more applicable to public health ethics. Nevertheless, faulting additional protections towards the human person, utilitarianism doesn't offer appropriate solutions when conflicts among values do arise. Further criteria must be applied to protect the fundamental principles of respect for human life. Personalism offers similar advantages to utilitarianism but warrants more protection to the human person. We suggest a possible adaptation of personalism in the specific field of public health by means of four principles: absolute respect for life or principle of inviolability; subsidiarity and the "minimum" mandatory principle; solidarity; justice and non discrimination.

The article is divided into three sections: (i) an overview of the main ethical models in public health (theoretical foundations); (ii) a summary of several published frameworks for public health ethics (practical frameworks); and (iii) a few general remarks. Rather than maintaining the superiority of one position over the others, the main aim of the article is to summarize the basic approaches proposed thus far concerning the development of public health ethics by describing and comparing the various ideas in the literature. With this in mind, an extensive list of references is provided.

Increases in international travel and migratory flows have enabled infectious diseases to emerge and spread more rapidly than ever before. Hence, it is increasingly easy for local infectious diseases to become global infectious diseases (GIDs). National governments must be able to react quickly and effectively to GIDs, whether naturally occurring or intentionally instigated by bioterrorism. According to the World Health Organisation, global partnerships are necessary to gather the most up-to-date information and to mobilize resources to tackle GIDs when necessary. Communicable disease control also depends upon national public health laws and policies. The containment of an infectious disease typically involves detection, notification, quarantine and isolation of actual or suspected cases; the protection and monitoring of those not infected; and possibly even treatment. Some measures are clearly contentious and raise conflicts between individual and societal interests. In Europe national policies against infectious diseases are very heterogeneous. Some countries have a more communitarian approach to public health ethics, in which the interests of individual and society are more closely intertwined and interdependent, while others take a more liberal approach and give priority to individual freedoms in communicable disease control. This paper provides an overview of the different policies around communicable disease control that exist across a select number of countries across Europe. It then proposes ethical arguments to be considered in the making of public health laws, mostly concerning their effectiveness for public health protection.

First we give an overview of the historical development of public health. Then we present some public-health deontology codes and some ethical principles. We highlight difficulties in defining ethics for public health, with specific reference to three of them that concern: (i) the adaptability to public health of the classical principles of bioethics; (ii) the duty to respect and safeguard the individual while acting within the community perspective that is typical of public health; and (iii) the application-oriented nature of public health and the general lack of attention towards the ethical implications of collective interventions (compared with research). We then mention some proposals drafted from North American bioethics "principles" and utilitarian, liberal and communitarian views. Drawing from other approaches, personalism is outlined as being the theory that offers a consistent set of values and alternative principles that are relevant for public health.

The significance of the binomial "ethics" and "public health" is firstly described. Several definitions are given. A few characteristics making bioethics (concerning mainly individuals) different from ethics in public health (concerning populations) are described. The authors point out how bioethics has been investigated more deeply than public health ethics. Synergy between the two is desirable and efforts should be made in order to promote integration. The importance of research and training in public health ethics and of data exchange with other branches of learning are underlined. A list of national and international institutions dealing with public health ethics is given.

The author reflects on the significance of research ethics boards (REBs) in response to the article "Ethics of clinical science in a public health emergency: Drug discovery at the bedside," published elsewhere in the issue by S. J. L. Edwards. Topics include clinical trials in emergency situations, research protocols, and cluster randomisation.