Search

The COVID‐19 pandemic created healthcare backlogs of routine primary and preventive care, elective procedures, dental care, and mental healthcare appointments across the world. So far, governments are responding by enacting pandemic recovery policies that expand their healthcare sector activity, without much, if any, consideration of its effects on the environmental crisis that is (among other things) worsening human health and health equity. This study argues that, as a matter of health and social justice, governments have an ethical responsibility to equitably reduce the backlog with minimal environmental damage. To do so, a first key action is to give priority to policy options that minimise negative human impacts on the environment. Yet these policies alone will not be sufficient to address the backlog, particularly in relation to elective procedures. The study therefore contends that a second key action for governments is to enact the policy options that are best able to equitably reduce the remainder of the backlog, while accelerating the transition to sustainable health care in ways that are best able to reduce the specific environmental costs of those policy options. It concludes by considering whether limits apply to governments' ethical responsibilities that ultimately mean accelerating the transition to sustainable health care is not required when addressing the backlog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A transformation of global health research is urgently needed if it is to eliminate long‐standing structural inequities within the field and help reduce global health disparities. Ethics has a key role to play in fostering such a transformation: it can help identify what the transformation should entail. Yet, ethics scholarship linking global health research to greater equity and social justice has limited authority and capacity to do so for two related reasons: it largely fails to apply theories and concepts of justice from the global South and it says little about whether or how to address the coloniality and epistemic injustices inherent within global health research. This paper develops a multidimensional social justice lens using social justice and decolonial theory from the global North and global South. This lens identifies five core dimensions of social justice: power, recognition, harmony, inclusion, and well‐being. This paper then applies the multidimensional lens to the global health research context. For each dimension of social justice, several key ways to transform global health research are identified and described. They include shifting control of global health research funding, education, conduct, and publishing away from the global North and making knowledge from the global South visible and valued. To conclude, potential objections are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Growing evidence shows cities' climate change efforts can worsen inequities and social injustices. This paper starts to formulate a normative conception of social justice for urban climate change planning. It identifies what dimensions of social justice are articulated and how they are defined in the literature on equity in urban planning for climate change. It shows at least five dimensions are pertinent: creating transformations, promoting the well-being of the socially marginalized, recognition, inclusion in decision-making, and distributive justice. The paper concludes by discussing where further developments are needed to generate a comprehensive account of equitable urban planning for climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]