Global Bioethics最新文献

The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare and epidemiology undoubtedly has many benefits for the population. However, due to its environmental impact, the use of AI can produce social inequalities and long-term environmental damages that may not be thoroughly contemplated. In this paper, we propose to consider the impacts of AI applications in medical care from the One Health paradigm and long-term global health. From health and environmental justice, rather than settling for a short and fleeting green honeymoon between health and sustainability caused by AI, it should aim for a lasting marriage. To this end, we conclude by proposing that, in the upcoming years, it could be valuable and necessary to promote more interconnected health, call for environmental cost transparency, and increase green responsibility. Highlights Using AI in medicine and epidemiology has some benefits in the short term.AI usage may cause social inequalities and environmental damage in the long term.Health justice should be rethought from the One Health perspective.Going beyond anthropocentric and myopic cost-benefit analysis would expand health justice to include an environmental dimension.Greening AI would help to reconcile public and global health measures.

Establishing effective pharmaceutical governance is a challenge for government agencies, private enterprises, and professionals working on the ground, demanding complex ethical decisions from the actors involved, especially in a lower-middle-income country like Ghana. This letter aims to share the author's perspectives and additional considerations on the analyses of the reports in the paper "It is very difficult in this business if you want to have a good conscience": pharmaceutical governance and on-the-ground ethical labor in Ghana by Hampshire et al. The letter's authors discuss the need to advance universal health coverage in Ghana, the everyday ethics, and the disparities between the collective and individual moral consciousness of the participants, as well as other aspects of governance in the pharmaceutical sector.

Bioethics provides various models of fair allocation of scarce health resources like COVID-19 vaccines. Even though these models are grounded in some ethical principles like justice and beneficence, there were severe inequalities in global access to COVID-19 vaccines. In Ghana, about 21.5 million COVID-19-doses have been administered but comprise mainly members of the adult population. As a result, ethical issues related to vaccinating children have been largely ignored in the country. This paper explores some of the ethical implications related to children's exclusion in the initial COVID-19 vaccination programs in Ghana. It provides a general overview of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana and how it related to children and discusses the risks to which Ghanaian children were exposed by delaying their COVID-19 vaccination. A guide to facilitating the full rollout of COVID-19 vaccination in Ghana for children has been proposed that indicates that a fair vaccine distribution for children should prioritize children on admission at health facilities, those diagnosed with severe underlying health conditions, and children who could play an instrumental role in promoting vaccine uptake. It concludes that children must not be placed at the peripheries of the COVID-19 vaccination program in Ghana.

Key to discussions around feedback of individual results from genomics research are practical questions on how such results should be fed back, by who and when. However, there has been virtually no work investigating these practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic results in the context of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially in Africa. Consequently, we conducted deliberative focus group discussions with 6 groups of adolescents (n = 44) who previously participated in a genomics study in Botswana as well as 6 groups of parents and caregivers (n = 49) of children who participated in the same study. We also conducted in-depth interviews with 6 adolescents and 6 parents or caregivers. Our findings revealed that both adolescents and parents would prefer to receive their individual genetic results in person, with adolescents preferring researchers to provide feedback, while parents preferred doctors who are associated with the study. Both adolescents and parents further expressed that feedback should be supported by counselling but differed on the timing of feedback, with preferences ranging from feedback as quickly as possible to feedback at project end. In conclusion, decisions on practicalities for feedback of results should be done in account of participants' context and considerations of participants' preferences.

The governance of pharmaceutical medicines entails complex ethical decisions that should, in theory, be the responsibility of democratically accountable government agencies. However, in many Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), regulatory and health systems constraints mean that many people still lack access to safe, appropriate and affordable medication, posing significant ethical challenges for those working on the "front line". Drawing on 18 months of fieldwork in Ghana, we present three detailed case studies of individuals in this position: an urban retail pharmacist, a rural over-the-counter medicine retailer, and a local inspector. Through these case studies, we consider the significant burden of "ethical labour" borne by those operating "on the ground", who navigate complex moral, legal and business imperatives in real time and with very real consequences for those they serve. The paper ends with a reflection on the tensions between abstract, generalised ethical frameworks based on high-level principles, and a pragmatic, contingent ethics-in-practice that foregrounds immediate individual needs - a tension rooted in the gap between the theory and the reality of pharmaceutical governance that shifts the burden of ethical labour downwards and perpetuates long-term public health risks.

Issues related to controlled human infection studies using Schistosoma mansoni (CHI-S) were explored to ensure the ethical and voluntary participation of potential CHI-S volunteers in an endemic setting in Uganda. We invited volunteers from a fishing community and a tertiary education community to guide the development of informed consent procedures. Consultative group discussions were held to modify educational materials on schistosomiasis, vaccines and the CHI-S model and similar discussions were held with a test group. With both groups, a mock consent process was conducted. Fourteen in-depth key informant interviews and three group discussions were held to explore perceptions towards participating in a CHI-S. Most of the participants had not heard of the CHI-S. Willingness to take part depended on understanding the study procedures and the consenting process. Close social networks were key in deciding to take part. The worry of adverse effects was cited as a possible hindrance to taking part. Volunteer time compensation was unclear for a CHI-S. Potential volunteers in these communities are willing to take part in a CHI-S. Community engagement is needed to build trust and time must be taken to share study procedures and ensure understanding of key messages.

This paper argues that as we move to redefine global bioethics, there is a need to be attentive to the ethical issues associated with the environmental sustainability of data and digital infrastructures in global health systems. We show that these infrastructures have thus far featured little in environmental impact discussions in the context of health, and we use a case study approach of biobanking to illustrate this. We argue that this missing discussion is problematic because biobanks have environmental impacts associated with data and digital infrastructures. We consider several ethical questions to consider these impacts: what ethical work does the concept of environmental sustainability add to the debate; how should this concept be prioritised in decision-making; and who should be responsible for doing so? We call on global bioethics to play a role in advancing this dialogue and addressing these questions.