{"title":"THANK YOU TO DEVELOPING WORLD BIOETHICS REVIEWERS","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":"25 4","pages":"322-323"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145666186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Carlos M Ardila, Anny Marcela Vivares-Builes, Eliana Pineda-Vélez
{"title":"Beyond Affordability: The Bioethics of Inclusion and Justice in Advanced Therapies.","authors":"Carlos M Ardila, Anny Marcela Vivares-Builes, Eliana Pineda-Vélez","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145534956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Brazil's Ethical Research Framework Is Under Threat-And the Pharmaceutical Industry Stands to Gain.","authors":"Fernando Augusto Lima Marson","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145524533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Karina Ordoñez-Torres, Sergio Litewka, Elizabeth Heitman
Research integrity remains a challenge to public trust in science around the world. Retracted scientific papers can erode the public's trust by raising doubt about the reliability of the published literature. This paper assesses article retractions involving Mexican authors through analysis of relevant data and retraction patterns. The study examines 55 retracted articles with Mexican corresponding authors, categorizing them by publication venue, article type, scientific area, reasons for retraction, and time between publication and retraction. The findings underscore core challenges to research integrity in Mexico and the need to strengthen both research training and research integrity initiatives in Mexican research institutions. The paper concludes with recommendations for contextually relevant strategies for Mexican academia to foster research integrity.
{"title":"What Retractions Tell Us About Research Integrity in Mexican Academia.","authors":"Karina Ordoñez-Torres, Sergio Litewka, Elizabeth Heitman","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research integrity remains a challenge to public trust in science around the world. Retracted scientific papers can erode the public's trust by raising doubt about the reliability of the published literature. This paper assesses article retractions involving Mexican authors through analysis of relevant data and retraction patterns. The study examines 55 retracted articles with Mexican corresponding authors, categorizing them by publication venue, article type, scientific area, reasons for retraction, and time between publication and retraction. The findings underscore core challenges to research integrity in Mexico and the need to strengthen both research training and research integrity initiatives in Mexican research institutions. The paper concludes with recommendations for contextually relevant strategies for Mexican academia to foster research integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145514872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyzes the interplay between Ubuntu's philosophy: "I am, because we are; and because we are, therefore I am" with the expression "We are all in this together," which resounded mostly in North America and Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article argues that the expression "We are all in this together" directly or indirectly adopted Ubuntu's philosophy of relational solidarity in handling and navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. The expression implicitly acknowledges that pandemics can be mitigated through collaboration, shared responsibility, and relational solidarity.
{"title":"Ubuntu Vis-à-Vis the Saying \"We Are All in This Together\" in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic.","authors":"John Mark Ogu","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70010","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article analyzes the interplay between Ubuntu's philosophy: \"I am, because we are; and because we are, therefore I am\" with the expression \"We are all in this together,\" which resounded mostly in North America and Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article argues that the expression \"We are all in this together\" directly or indirectly adopted Ubuntu's philosophy of relational solidarity in handling and navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. The expression implicitly acknowledges that pandemics can be mitigated through collaboration, shared responsibility, and relational solidarity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145402813","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Public health experts and research protocols trace disease outbreaks back to their potential origins.1 These investigations can focus on one person or a whole community. The effort is to identify the first case of a new infection, trace how far and at what pace the new disease is spreading, and understand and anticipate the best ways to contain it. Once “patient zero” or the “index case” is identified, the scientific community races to understand the evidence better. However, naming someone or a community as the origin case has ethical implications that deserves more reflection in bioethics and research ethics.2 To start, tying an outbreak to one person or community—with a specific status, gender and other social determinants—narrows down causality and responsibility, placing blame on an event or subject, and obscuring wider structures favoring disease occurrence and spread.3 Through our fieldwork with communities affected by health emergencies, we have witnessed the identification of “index cases.” This has inspired us to explore how persons and communities circulate subjectivities related to the status of being reference cases, and what they expect from scientists as being an index case becomes part of their lived experience.</p><p>In the past ten years, we have listened to stories from persons identified as the first cases of vertical transmission of Zika, to families related to the first documented events of maternal mortality from Covid-19, and, now, the primary vertical transmission of Oropouche fever in Brazil.4 Nathalia Neri, 33, shared her story surrounded by family members who work at the local public health facility. Nathalia's family lives in Rio Formoso, a community in Brazil that was devastated by the Zika epidemic in 2015 and remains in a permanent state of response to endemic arboviruses outbreaks. In 2024, her mother, a community health worker, noticed a new disease emerging in the village. Clinics were full of people, however, testing negative for Dengue, Zika, and Chikungunya.</p><p>Nathalia's mother decided to collect her daughter's blood sample for health surveillance because “something seemed unusual for mild Dengue or Zika.” She requested a test for the Oropouche virus, which was not easily accessible via the public health system. Nathalia tested negative. The mother had decided to closely monitor her pregnancy, as she remained intrigued by Nathalia's clinical symptoms, and was the one who notified the state's health secretary and researchers of her suspicion of fetal loss. Nathalia agreed to an autopsy on her daughter, extending the trust she had in her mother to scientists and medical personnel. The research team found the Oropouche virus in several of the fetus's organs and published a paper supporting the hypothesis that the Oropouche virus is vertically transmitted and can lead to fetal death.5</p><p>In strict terms, the research team and policymakers followed the best practices of a research protocol. Nathalia was
{"title":"Being the index-case: For an ethics of reciprocity","authors":"Debora Diniz, Arbel Griner, Patricia Kingori","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70008","DOIUrl":"10.1111/dewb.70008","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Public health experts and research protocols trace disease outbreaks back to their potential origins.1 These investigations can focus on one person or a whole community. The effort is to identify the first case of a new infection, trace how far and at what pace the new disease is spreading, and understand and anticipate the best ways to contain it. Once “patient zero” or the “index case” is identified, the scientific community races to understand the evidence better. However, naming someone or a community as the origin case has ethical implications that deserves more reflection in bioethics and research ethics.2 To start, tying an outbreak to one person or community—with a specific status, gender and other social determinants—narrows down causality and responsibility, placing blame on an event or subject, and obscuring wider structures favoring disease occurrence and spread.3 Through our fieldwork with communities affected by health emergencies, we have witnessed the identification of “index cases.” This has inspired us to explore how persons and communities circulate subjectivities related to the status of being reference cases, and what they expect from scientists as being an index case becomes part of their lived experience.</p><p>In the past ten years, we have listened to stories from persons identified as the first cases of vertical transmission of Zika, to families related to the first documented events of maternal mortality from Covid-19, and, now, the primary vertical transmission of Oropouche fever in Brazil.4 Nathalia Neri, 33, shared her story surrounded by family members who work at the local public health facility. Nathalia's family lives in Rio Formoso, a community in Brazil that was devastated by the Zika epidemic in 2015 and remains in a permanent state of response to endemic arboviruses outbreaks. In 2024, her mother, a community health worker, noticed a new disease emerging in the village. Clinics were full of people, however, testing negative for Dengue, Zika, and Chikungunya.</p><p>Nathalia's mother decided to collect her daughter's blood sample for health surveillance because “something seemed unusual for mild Dengue or Zika.” She requested a test for the Oropouche virus, which was not easily accessible via the public health system. Nathalia tested negative. The mother had decided to closely monitor her pregnancy, as she remained intrigued by Nathalia's clinical symptoms, and was the one who notified the state's health secretary and researchers of her suspicion of fetal loss. Nathalia agreed to an autopsy on her daughter, extending the trust she had in her mother to scientists and medical personnel. The research team found the Oropouche virus in several of the fetus's organs and published a paper supporting the hypothesis that the Oropouche virus is vertically transmitted and can lead to fetal death.5</p><p>In strict terms, the research team and policymakers followed the best practices of a research protocol. Nathalia was ","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":"25 4","pages":"255-256"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dewb.70008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145349698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aloysius Ochasi, Abdoul Jalil Djiberou Mahamadou, Russ B Altman, Levi U C Nkwocha
There is an ongoing debate on how to balance the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence (AI), especially in healthcare. In resource-constrained settings, such as Africa, where access to quality care remains a challenge, AI has the potential to improve efficiency, accessibility, and patient outcomes. Yet, its development and deployment raise complex ethical, legal, ecological, and socioeconomic concerns. To ensure context-sensitive solutions, this paper introduces Ubuntu, a traditional African ethical philosophy, as a guiding framework for AI in African healthcare. Ubuntu offers a people-centered alternative to dominant Western-centric models, providing a culturally grounded lens for interpreting justice-related principles in line with Africa's unique needs and realities. Drawing on Ubuntu's five core values of communalism, interdependence, humanism, sharing, and compassion, we analyze how these principles can ethically guide AI across three normative pillars: justice and fairness, solidarity, and sustainability. For each, we identify risks and offer concrete, culturally resonant strategies to address them. In doing so, we undertake a distinctive scholarly contribution that meaningfully enriches the emerging discourse on decolonizing AI by reframing Ubuntu not only as a moral compass but also as a strategic tool for structural reform and innovation.
{"title":"Reframing Justice in Healthcare AI: An Ubuntu-Based Approach for Africa.","authors":"Aloysius Ochasi, Abdoul Jalil Djiberou Mahamadou, Russ B Altman, Levi U C Nkwocha","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70007","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is an ongoing debate on how to balance the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence (AI), especially in healthcare. In resource-constrained settings, such as Africa, where access to quality care remains a challenge, AI has the potential to improve efficiency, accessibility, and patient outcomes. Yet, its development and deployment raise complex ethical, legal, ecological, and socioeconomic concerns. To ensure context-sensitive solutions, this paper introduces Ubuntu, a traditional African ethical philosophy, as a guiding framework for AI in African healthcare. Ubuntu offers a people-centered alternative to dominant Western-centric models, providing a culturally grounded lens for interpreting justice-related principles in line with Africa's unique needs and realities. Drawing on Ubuntu's five core values of communalism, interdependence, humanism, sharing, and compassion, we analyze how these principles can ethically guide AI across three normative pillars: justice and fairness, solidarity, and sustainability. For each, we identify risks and offer concrete, culturally resonant strategies to address them. In doing so, we undertake a distinctive scholarly contribution that meaningfully enriches the emerging discourse on decolonizing AI by reframing Ubuntu not only as a moral compass but also as a strategic tool for structural reform and innovation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145304462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A 'Neopotterian Theory of Global Bioethics': Additional Moral Frameworks and Bio-Ethical Criteria for Asia and Europe.","authors":"Henri-Corto Stoeklé, Christian Hervé","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145253000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>It is difficult to offer a comprehensive account of the current US government's impact on global HIV/AIDS efforts. However, two particularly troubling developments merit urgent ethical scrutiny due to their immediate and long-term consequences for people living with HIV and for the future trajectory of the pandemic in the Global South.</p><p>At the core of both developments lies the United States’ unilateral decision to terminate support for PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), a cornerstone of global HIV/AIDS funding for treatment, prevention, and research. Interestingly, PEPFAR was the brainchild of another Republican administration, albeit led by a different President, George W. Bush. In March 2025, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was effectively dismantled by a newly appointed government efficiency czar, resulting in the abrupt cessation of financial support for these programmes. Simultaneously, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented sweeping changes to its research funding policies, effectively ending its capacity to subcontract research to institutions in the Global South.</p><p>According to UNAIDS, the termination of PEPFAR could result in up to 4.2 million HIV-related deaths by 2029, assuming affected national governments are unable or unwilling to replace the lost funding.1 UNAIDS has also provided detailed country-level assessments of the impact of these cuts, which underscore the scale of the unfolding crisis.2</p><p>The second major consequence of these policy shifts is the widespread disruption—and in many cases, termination—of ongoing HIV vaccine and therapeutic research in the Global South. These projects, often midstream, were halted without prior warning, undermining years of scientific progress and infrastructure development.3</p><p>The harmful effects of these funding cuts then, in terms of life-years lost, are both immediate, in that people with HIV lose access to life-preserving drugs, as well as long-term, given that they undermine the development of a preventive vaccine. Glenda Gray, a globally leading HIV researcher in South Africa, lays out the immediate practical implications of the policy changes implemented by the US government. She writes, ‘basically you lose the knowledge or the value of understanding HIV prevention, HIV vaccines or therapeutics. We [<i>in South Africa</i>] have the infrastructure, we have the burden of disease, and we have the ability to answer these questions. And so it's going to take much longer to answer these questions than if you had South Africa there’.4 Gray's colleague, Francoise Venter, offers an equally sobering assessment: ‘We're watching the largest HIV treatment programme in the world unravelling in real time’.5</p><p>In Gray's considered view South Africa, a middle-income country, doesn't have the financial capacity to continue funding the existing projects and infrastructure. She puts it in these stark terms, ‘I'm going from ban
{"title":"When Austerity Kills: The Ethical Cost of US HIV/AIDS Policy Shifts","authors":"Udo Schüklenk","doi":"10.1111/dewb.70000","DOIUrl":"10.1111/dewb.70000","url":null,"abstract":"<p>It is difficult to offer a comprehensive account of the current US government's impact on global HIV/AIDS efforts. However, two particularly troubling developments merit urgent ethical scrutiny due to their immediate and long-term consequences for people living with HIV and for the future trajectory of the pandemic in the Global South.</p><p>At the core of both developments lies the United States’ unilateral decision to terminate support for PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), a cornerstone of global HIV/AIDS funding for treatment, prevention, and research. Interestingly, PEPFAR was the brainchild of another Republican administration, albeit led by a different President, George W. Bush. In March 2025, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was effectively dismantled by a newly appointed government efficiency czar, resulting in the abrupt cessation of financial support for these programmes. Simultaneously, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented sweeping changes to its research funding policies, effectively ending its capacity to subcontract research to institutions in the Global South.</p><p>According to UNAIDS, the termination of PEPFAR could result in up to 4.2 million HIV-related deaths by 2029, assuming affected national governments are unable or unwilling to replace the lost funding.1 UNAIDS has also provided detailed country-level assessments of the impact of these cuts, which underscore the scale of the unfolding crisis.2</p><p>The second major consequence of these policy shifts is the widespread disruption—and in many cases, termination—of ongoing HIV vaccine and therapeutic research in the Global South. These projects, often midstream, were halted without prior warning, undermining years of scientific progress and infrastructure development.3</p><p>The harmful effects of these funding cuts then, in terms of life-years lost, are both immediate, in that people with HIV lose access to life-preserving drugs, as well as long-term, given that they undermine the development of a preventive vaccine. Glenda Gray, a globally leading HIV researcher in South Africa, lays out the immediate practical implications of the policy changes implemented by the US government. She writes, ‘basically you lose the knowledge or the value of understanding HIV prevention, HIV vaccines or therapeutics. We [<i>in South Africa</i>] have the infrastructure, we have the burden of disease, and we have the ability to answer these questions. And so it's going to take much longer to answer these questions than if you had South Africa there’.4 Gray's colleague, Francoise Venter, offers an equally sobering assessment: ‘We're watching the largest HIV treatment programme in the world unravelling in real time’.5</p><p>In Gray's considered view South Africa, a middle-income country, doesn't have the financial capacity to continue funding the existing projects and infrastructure. She puts it in these stark terms, ‘I'm going from ban","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":"25 3","pages":"167-168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dewb.70000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144576862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anaesthesia waste gases (AWGs) represent a significant yet often overlooked contributor to healthcare's environmental footprint, with implications extending beyond ecological concerns to encompass occupational hazards and complex ethical considerations. This article examines the intersection of AWGs and bioethics through the framework of environmental stewardship, occupational health principles, patient-centered care, and distributive justice. Contemporary volatile anaesthetics possess global warming potentials thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide, while implicated occupational exposures raise concerns about reproductive health and neurological function among healthcare workers. The bioethical paradigms of principalism-encompassing nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice-and environmental ethics provide structured approaches to addressing these multifaceted challenges. This review synthesizes current evidence regarding AWGs' environmental and occupational impacts, evaluates emerging mitigation strategies, and proposes an integrated ethical framework to guide clinical practice, institutional policy, and professional standards in anaesthesiology.
{"title":"Anaesthesia Waste Gases and Bioethics: Balancing Patient Care, Environmental Responsibility, and Occupational Safety.","authors":"Shibu Sasidharan, Harpreet Dhillon","doi":"10.1111/dewb.12489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12489","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anaesthesia waste gases (AWGs) represent a significant yet often overlooked contributor to healthcare's environmental footprint, with implications extending beyond ecological concerns to encompass occupational hazards and complex ethical considerations. This article examines the intersection of AWGs and bioethics through the framework of environmental stewardship, occupational health principles, patient-centered care, and distributive justice. Contemporary volatile anaesthetics possess global warming potentials thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide, while implicated occupational exposures raise concerns about reproductive health and neurological function among healthcare workers. The bioethical paradigms of principalism-encompassing nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice-and environmental ethics provide structured approaches to addressing these multifaceted challenges. This review synthesizes current evidence regarding AWGs' environmental and occupational impacts, evaluates emerging mitigation strategies, and proposes an integrated ethical framework to guide clinical practice, institutional policy, and professional standards in anaesthesiology.</p>","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144303419","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}