Public Health Ethics最新文献

Despite extensive stigma mitigation efforts, infectious disease stigma remains common. So far, little attention has been paid to the moral psychology of stigmatizing practices (i.e. beliefs, attitudes, actions) rather than the experience of being stigmatized. Addressing the moral psychology behind stigmatizing practices seems necessary to explain the persistence of infectious disease stigma and to develop effective mitigation strategies. Our article proposes building on Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory, which states that moral judgements follow from intuitions rather than conscious reasoning. Conceptual analysis was conducted to show how Haidt's five moral foundations can be connected to (i) moral judgements about stigmatizing practices and (ii) stigmatizing practices themselves. We found that care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal and sanctity/degradation intuitions can inform moral judgements about stigmatizing practices. Loyalty/betrayal and sanctity/degradation intuitions can sometimes also feed stigmatizing practices. Authority/subversion intuitions can inform moral judgements and stigmatizing practices towards people who disrespect authoritative rules meant to protect public health. Moral dumbfounding and posthoc reasoning might explain the persistence of stigmatizing practices. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the relevance of Haidt's approach to infectious disease stigma research and mitigation strategies. We hope that this study motivates researchers to further test and assess this approach.

This paper discusses the ethics of public health communication. We argue that a number of commonplace tools of public health communication risk qualifying as non-honest and question whether or not using such tools is ethically justified. First, we introduce the concept of honesty and suggest some reasons for thinking it is morally desirable. We then describe a number of common ways in which public health communication presents information about health-promoting interventions. These include the omission of information about the magnitude of benefits people can expect from health-promoting interventions, and failure to report uncertainty associated with the outcomes of interventions. Next we outline some forms of behaviour which are generally recognised by philosophers as being non-honest, including deception, manipulation, and so on. Finally, we suggest that many of the public health communicative practices identified earlier share features with the non-honest behaviours described and suggest this warrants reflection upon whether such non-honesty is justified by the goals of public health communication.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad002.].

Paternalism is a frequent source of anxiety and scholarly enquiry within public health. This article examines debate in the UK from the 1950s to the early 1980s about two quintessentially paternalistic laws: those making it compulsory to use a motorcycle helmet, and a car seatbelt. This kind of historical analysis, looking at change over time and the circumstances that prevent or enable such change, draws attention to two significant features: the contingent nature of that which is perceived as paternalistic and therefore objectionable, and the wide range of arguments that can be marshalled for and against. It suggests that paternalism became a particularly disruptive accusation in the UK of the 1970s in relation to seatbelts, thanks to the population that would be affected and the wider socio-political context. It also suggests that arguments about the social cost of death and injury on the roads, along with overt acceptance that some element of paternalism could be acceptable, proved influential-as was the sense of inevitability that 10 years of regular debate helped to create.

School closure is one of the most debated measures undertaken to contain the spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The pandemic has devastating health and socio-economic effects and must be contained, but schools play a vital role in present and future well-being, capabilities and health of children. We examine the detrimental consequences of both the closure and reopening of schools, by focusing on inequalities in the challenges affecting children and their families. This paper is grounded on Irish and Italian data from a multi-national longitudinal qualitative interview study. Research participants articulated a variety of issues and challenges that highlight inequalities in access to education during school closures, in the supportiveness of home setting, and in school preparedness to reopen, often mirroring or exacerbating pre-existing inequalities. The reported unequal lived experiences indicate that some harms are actionable, and already suggest some potential harm mitigation strategies. We conclude by advocating for enhanced public consultation to help mitigate the consequences of public dilemmas in general, and to help detect and tackle inadequacies and inequalities for school children through and beyond the pandemic, by learning from the experience of the concerned actors.

Global consumption of antibiotics has accelerated the evolution of bacterial antimicrobial resistance. Yet, the risks from increasing bacterial antimicrobial resistance are not restricted to human populations: transmission of antimicrobial resistant bacteria occurs between humans, farms, the environment and other reservoirs. Policies that take a 'One Health' approach deal with this cross-reservoir spread, but are often more restrictive concerning human actions than policies that focus on a single reservoir. As such, the burden of justification lies with these more restrictive policies. We argue that an ethical justification for preferring One Health policies over less restrictive alternatives relies on empirical evidence as well as theory. The ethical justification for these policies is based on two arguments: (i) comparatively greater effectiveness, and (ii) comparatively better tracking of moral responsibility. Yet the empirical assumptions on which these claims rest are limited by existing empirical knowledge. Using livestock farming as an example, we suggest that scientific research into characterising antimicrobial resistance and linking practices to outcomes ought to be guided (at least in part) by the imperative to supply the context-specific data needed to ethically justify preferring a One Health policy over less restrictive alternatives.

Patient referral management is an integral part of clinical practice. However, in low-resource settings, referrals are often delayed. The World Health Organization categorizes three types of referral delays; delay in seeking care, in reaching care and in receiving care. Using two case studies of maternal referrals (from a low-resource state in India), this article shows how a culture of downstream blaming permeates referral practice in India. With no referral guidelines to follow, providers in higher-facilities evaluate the clinical decision-making of their peers in lower-facilities based on patient outcome, not on objective measures. The fear of punitive action for an unfavorable maternal outcome is a larger driving factor than patient safety. The article argues for the need to formulate an ecosystem where patient responsibility is shared across the health system. In conclusion, it discusses possible solutions which can bridge communication and information gap between referring facilities.

From a moral point of view, what arguments are there for and against seeking COVID-19 vaccination? Can it be morally permissible to require (parts of) a population to receive a vaccine? The present paper adopts a perspective of virtue ethics and argues both that it is morally right for an individual virtuous moral agent to seek COVID-19 vaccination and for a virtuous ruler to impose mandatory vaccinations on her population. We begin by first presenting virtue ethics and the current vaccine controversy. Second, we examine whether a virtuous individual should get vaccinated. Third, we consider whether, from a moral point of view, it is right for a ruler to impose mandatory vaccinations on her citizens. Fourth, we answer some objections to our argument. Finally, we conclude that virtue ethical considerations warrant both the individual choice of getting vaccinated and mandatory vaccinations against COVID-19.