The genesis of public health ethics

[Reducing Health Inequalities: Development of a Stepwise Procedure from Data to Political Interventions]

Low socioeconomic status (assessed by indicators such as educational level or income) is often associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This has been shown in many empirical studies, also in Germany. There are numerous calls for political interventions aimed at reducing these health inequalities, in scientific discussions as well as in the public. Asked for scientifically based recommendations on how to proceed 'from data to action̓, we have to admit that we are still faced with many questions and few answers. Developing these recommendations poses many challenges such as, for example, how to integrate the expertise from different public health disciplines. The present study focuses on the cooperation between social epidemiology, public health ethics and health economics, as we believe that these three disciplines are of particular importance here. We briefly outline what each of them could contribute to the development of practical interventions aimed at reducing health inequalities. We particularly emphasize the importance of public health ethics, as it focuses on questions that to date have largely been neglected in the German discussion: How can we evaluate the empirical data and the proposed political interventions from an ethical point of view? Which health inequalities are 'unjust̓, and how can this normative judgement be justified? Based on the expertise from the three disciplines mentioned above, the aim is to pave the way 'from data to action̓ by developing a well-structured stepwise procedure for interventions aimed at reducing health inequalities. The joint scheme could be very beneficial not only for developing practical interventions, but also for further developing each discipline in itself. The simple scheme proposed here could be a starting point that helps specify many open questions on this path 'from data to action̓.

E-cigarettes: A framework for comparative history and policy

BACKGROUND

England, Australia and the United States have approached the regulation of e-cigarettes in very different ways, yet all three countries have appealed to the concept of evidence as underpinning policy responses. We compared these policy responses using a combination of the methodologies of historians and policy scientists in order to elucidate the factors that had influenced policy in each country.

ARGUMENT/ANALYSIS

Each country's evidence and values intersected in different ways, producing very different responses within specific national contexts and histories. Our analysis accordingly emphasized the historical precursors of the policy issues raised by e-cigarettes and placed the policy debate within the context of regulatory bodies and the networks of researchers and advocates who influenced policy. Issues also of importance were the nature of the state; political context; the pre-history of nicotine for smoking cessation; the role of activism and its links with government; the influence of harm reduction ideas from drugs and HIV; and finally, whom policy was perceived to benefit. In the United Kingdom, based on this pre-history of the smoking issue, it was the existing smoker, while in the United States and Australia, protecting children and adolescents has played a central role.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural and historical factors appear to underpin differences in e-cigarette policy development in England, Australia and the United States.

Toward Consent in Molecular HIV Surveillance?: Perspectives of Critical Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

The emergence of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs as key features of the United States (US) HIV strategy since 2018 has caused major controversies. HIV surveillance programs that re-use individuals' routinely collected clinical HIV data do not require consent on the basis that the public benefit of these programs outweighs individuals' rights to opt out. However, criticisms of MHS/CDR have questioned whether expanded uses of HIV genetic sequence data for prevention reach beyond traditional public health ethics frameworks. This study aimed to explore views on consent within MHS/CDR among critical stakeholders.

METHODS

In 2021 we interviewed 26 US HIV stakeholders who identified as being critical or concerned about the rollout of MHS/CDR. Stakeholders included participants belonging to networks of people living with HIV, other advocates, academics, and public health professionals. This analysis focused on identifying the range of positions among critical and concerned stakeholders on consent affordances, opt-outs, how to best inform people living with HIV about how data about them are used in public health programs, and related ethical issues.

RESULTS

Participants were broadly supportive of introducing some forms of consent into MHS/CDR. However, they differed on the specifics of implementing consent. While some participants did not support introducing consent affordances, all supported the idea that people living with HIV should be informed about how HIV surveillance and prevention is conducted and how individuals' data are used.

CONCLUSIONS

MHS/CDR has caused sustained controversy. Among critical stakeholders, consent is generally desirable but contested, although the right for people living with HIV to be informed was centrally supported. In an era of big data-driven public health interventions and routine uses of HIV genetic sequence data in surveillance and prevention, CDC and other agencies should revisit public health ethics frameworks and consider the possibility of consent processes.

The challenges of epidemiologic translation: communicating with physicians, policymakers, and the public

Translational epidemiology refers to the practical application of population-health research findings to efforts addressing health disparities and other public health issues. A principal focus of epidemiologic translation is on the communication of results to constituencies who can best make use of this information to effect positive health-related change. Indeed, it is contended that findings from epidemiologic research are of greatest use only if adequately communicated to health professionals, legislators and policymakers, and the public. This paper details the challenges faced by efforts to communicate findings to the these constituencies, especially three types of miscommunication that can derail efforts at translation. These include perceived misinformation, perceived disinformation, and perceived censorship. Epidemiologists are ethically obliged to avoid these types of miscommunication, and, accordingly, are advised to place greater emphasis on messaging and media outreach to physicians, government officials, medical educators, and the general public.

Documentary Assessment of the Abilities of Kyrgyzstan's Research Ethics Committees During Public Health Emergency and Non-Emergency Situations

Institutional Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play crucial roles in the impartial and competent review of scientific research, particularly during public health emergencies. In this report, we examined their ability and capacity to provide this basic service during public health emergencies and non-emergency situations. Our qualitative documentary analysis revealed that there are currently no legal regulations guiding the activities of Kyrgyz RECs during public health emergencies. In addition, major policy gaps exist in how RECs should operate in non-emergency circumstances. This lack of guidance highlights the urgent need to develop and implement ethical guidelines to meet the evolving needs of such emergencies. Our findings underscore the growing urgency of supporting capacity building of RECs to respond effectively to future pandemics and other public health crises.

What Type of Person Should I Be? About the Appeal to Virtues in Public Health Interventions

In line with how ethics has developed for the last three centuries, public health ethics has been widely dominated by a deontological as well as a utilitarian approach. The latter is a version of consequentialism, which states that maximizing utility is the primary goal of the majority of individuals or group action, while, on the other hand, virtue ethics, or at least the appeal to virtues, has been largely marginalized. The aim of this article is twofold. Firstly, we aim to highlight the political and ethical nature of public health interventions, often interpreted and presented as mere scientific enterprises. Secondly, we try to highlight the need to integrate or at least recognize the value of appeal to virtues in public health measures. The analysis will reference the Italian COVID-19 vaccination program as a case study. Initially, we will explore the political and ethical nature of any public health measure, using the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination program in Italy as an example. Subsequently, we will illustrate the deontological approach to ethics, the utilitarian one, and the virtues one, focusing on the dynamic of the agent’s perspective. Lastly, we will briefly analyze both the Italian COVID-19 vaccination program and the communication campaign that promoted it.

Solidarity and Public Health

We argue that an unqualified use of the term solidarity in public health is not only equivocal but problematic toward the ends of public health. The term may be deployed normatively by public health advocates to strengthen the bonds among public health practitioners and refer to an ideal society in which the importance of interdependence among members ought to be acknowledged throughout the polity. We propose an important distinction between partisan solidarity and societal solidarity. Because any moralized belief in a vision of a broad societal solidarity will be a contested political ideal, political reality would limit solidarity based on such a vision to partisan solidarity. An idealized vision of societal solidarity is simply not politically feasible in pluralistic, liberal, democratic societies. However, although societal solidarity is unlikely with respect to any particular policy, it might be hoped for with respect to constitutional procedures that provide boundaries for the agon of the political process. We suggest that moralizing assertions of a solidaristic ideal in a pluralistic society might be counterproductive to generating the political support necessary for public health per se and establishing legitimate public health policy. A pragmatic political approach would be for public health advocates to generate sufficient strong political support for those public health policies that are most amenable to the political and social realities of a time and place.

Into the “New Normal”: The Ethical and Analytical Challenge Facing Public Health Post-COVID-19

Even though various countries’ overall policy for dealing with the pandemic was not particularly innovative, the pandemic was perceived as a unique crisis. “COVID exceptionalism” has seemed to create “a new normal” that we all need to “learn to live with”. The main change in perspective, while not new for public health experts, is that health exists within a social and political context. While public health ethics has turned out to be an important discipline, there is a long way to its wider acceptance. Entering the “new normal” calls for a wider embrace of public health approaches to ethics. The renewed emphasis on understanding health as a social concept encompasses central normative implications in relation to dealing with COVID-19 and in relation to dealing with other global crises, chiefly climate change. We argue that entering the era of “the new normal” in healthcare requires a nuanced understanding of the relationship between the individual and society and demands the formulation of a new system of bioethics focused on the concept of solidarity as a central value in public health. Such a concept should refer to the fact that in the “new normal”, risks require new social and political formations of standing together in confronting risks that cross national, cultural, and identity borders. Forming and expanding solidarity in health and healthcare, we argue, is the main normative challenge for public health today.

Into the “New Normal”: The Ethical and Analytical Challenge Facing Public Health Post-COVID-19

Even though various countries’ overall policy for dealing with the pandemic was not particularly innovative, the pandemic was perceived as a unique crisis. “COVID exceptionalism” has seemed to create “a new normal” that we all need to “learn to live with”. The main change in perspective, while not new for public health experts, is that health exists within a social and political context. While public health ethics has turned out to be an important discipline, there is a long way to its wider acceptance. Entering the “new normal” calls for a wider embrace of public health approaches to ethics. The renewed emphasis on understanding health as a social concept encompasses central normative implications in relation to dealing with COVID-19 and in relation to dealing with other global crises, chiefly climate change. We argue that entering the era of “the new normal” in healthcare requires a nuanced understanding of the relationship between the individual and society and demands the formulation of a new system of bioethics focused on the concept of solidarity as a central value in public health. Such a concept should refer to the fact that in the “new normal”, risks require new social and political formations of standing together in confronting risks that cross national, cultural, and identity borders. Forming and expanding solidarity in health and healthcare, we argue, is the main normative challenge for public health today.

Navigating conflicting value systems: a grounded theory of the process of public health equity work in the context of mental health promotion and prevention of harms of substance use

BACKGROUND

Promoting health equity and reducing heath inequities is a foundational aim and ethical imperative in public health. There has been limited attention to and research on the ethical issues inherent in promoting health equity and reducing health inequities that public health practitioners experience in their work. The aim of the study was to explore how public health providers identified and navigated ethical issues and their management related to promoting health equity within services focused on mental health promotion and preventing harms of substance use.

METHODS

Semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups were conducted with 32 public health practitioners who provided public-health oriented services related to mental health promotion and prevention of substance use harms (e.g. harm reduction) in one Canadian province.

RESULTS

Participants engaged in the basic social process of navigating conflicting value systems. In this process, they came to recognize a range of ethically challenging situations related to health equity within a system that held values in conflict with health equity. The extent to which practitioners recognized, made sense of, and acted on these fundamental challenges was dependent on the degree to which they had developed a critical public health consciousness. Ethically challenging situations had impacts for practitioners, most importantly, the experiences of responding emotionally to ethical issues and the experience of living in dissonance when working to navigate ethical issues related to promoting health equity in their practice within a health system based in biomedical values.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an immediate need for practice-oriented tools for recognizing ethical dilemmas and supporting ethical decision making related to health equity in public health practice in the context of mental health promotion and prevention of harms of substance use. An increased focus on understanding public health ethical issues and working collaboratively and reflexively to address the complexity of equity work has the potential to strengthen equity strategies and improve population health.

Personal Interventions to Reduce Exposure to Outdoor Air Pollution

Unhealthy levels of air pollution are breathed by billions of people worldwide, and air pollution is the leading environmental cause of death and disability globally. Efforts to reduce air pollution at its many sources have had limited success, and in many areas of the world, poor air quality continues to worsen. Personal interventions to reduce exposure to air pollution include avoiding sources, staying indoors, filtering indoor air, using face masks, and limiting physical activity when and where air pollution levels are elevated. The effectiveness of these interventions varies widely with circumstances and conditions of use. Compared with upstream reduction or control of emissions, personal interventions place burdens and risk of adverse unintended consequences on individuals. We review evidence regarding the balance of benefits and potential harms of personal interventions for reducing exposure to outdoor air pollution, which merit careful consideration before making public health recommendations with regard to who should use personal interventions and where, when, and how they should be used. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 43 is April 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Public health nudges: weighing individual liberty and population health benefits

Libertarian paternalism describes the idea of nudging-that is, steering individual decision-making while preserving freedom of choice. In medicine, libertarian paternalism has gained widespread attention, specifically with respect to interventions designed to promote healthy behaviours. Some scholars argue that nudges appropriately balance autonomy and paternalistic beneficence, while others argue that nudges inherently exploit cognitive weaknesses. This paper further explores the ethics of libertarian paternalism in public health. The use of nudges may infringe on an individual's voluntary choice, autonomy and informed consent, but they are ethically justified when there is a clear public health benefit to the manipulation of choice.

When principles and pedagogy clash: Moving beyond the limits of scholarly practices in an academic-community partnership with sex worker activists

While U.S. public health education increasingly promotes community-based participatory research (CBPR) as a mode of socially-responsive research, today's intertwined health and social injustice crises demand honest reckoning with the limitations of CBPR as a framework for change. We are a team of students, fellows, and faculty reflecting on the complexities encountered over three years of collaborative work with street-based sex worker activists, in a city characterised by stark wealth disparities reinforced by policies of the university within which we operate. We centre a peer-based needs assessment survey and report on barriers to resources and services for sex workers to highlight hard choices and often unacknowledged challenges to academic partnerships. Our process intends to unsettle the too-sanguine narratives of CBPR, draw from insights arising in the discipline of law, and illuminate practices needed to honour commitments, translate knowledge to power-shifting action, and constructively engage with those most affected in determining the policies that structure their lives.We ask: Can our privileged position within the academy be usefully analysed, confronted, instrumentalised, and even subverted as we shape new practices and interventions in the name of health justice? How might we imagine principles and practices towards a movement public health?

"The health equity curse": ethical tensions in promoting health equity

BACKGROUND

Public health (PH) practitioners have a strong moral commitment to health equity and social justice. However, PH values often do not align with health systems values, making it challenging for PH practitioners to promote health equity. In spite of a growing range of PH ethics frameworks and theories, little is known about ethical concerns related to promotion of health equity in PH practice. The purpose of this paper is to examine the ethical concerns of PH practitioners in promoting health equity in the context of mental health promotion and prevention of harms of substance use.

METHODS

As part of a broader program of public health systems and services research, we interviewed 32 PH practitioners.

RESULTS

Using constant comparative analysis, we identified four systemic ethical tensions: [1] biomedical versus social determinants of health agenda; [2] systems driven agendas versus situational care; [3] stigma and discrimination versus respect for persons; and [4] trust and autonomy versus surveillance and social control.

CONCLUSIONS

Naming these tensions provides insights into the daily ethical challenges of PH practitioners and an opportunity to reflect on the relevance of PH frameworks. These findings highlight the value of relational ethics as a promising approach for developing ethical frameworks for PH practice.

Public health ethics and the COVID-19 pandemic

Health is a human right anchored in values as a basic necessity of life. It promotes the well-being of persons, communities, economic prosperity, and national development. The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caught the world unaware and unprepared. It presented a huge challenge to the health and economic systems of every country. Across the spectrum of human endeavor and liberty, several ethical questions have been raised with regard to its management, particularly the public health control measures. Decisions for pandemic control measures are made under difficult circumstances driven by urgency and panic, with uncertainties and complexities for public goods over individual rights. Global solidarity in controlling the pandemic is being tested. National governments have the responsibility to protect public health on the grounds of common good. Political considerations should not be the basis for decision-making against the best available epidemiological data from pandemic disease dynamics. Hence, the need to adhere to the values of honesty, trust, human dignity, solidarity, reciprocity, accountability, transparency, and justice are major considerations. A literature search was conducted for the publications from academic databases and websites of health-relevant organizations. I discuss the ethical questions and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of public health control measures using the standard ethical principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and social (distributive) justice. It is observed that, at the country level, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines are used to control the pandemic. As WHO through the COVAX strategy distributes the vaccines to less developed countries, a lot still needs to be done to address the complex bottlenecks of allocation and distribution. There is a need to ensure acceptable and transparent system that promotes cooperation, equitable access, and fair distribution of vaccines on a global scale.

Dying individuals and suffering populations: applying a population-level bioethics lens to palliative care in humanitarian contexts: before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Humanitarian crises and emergencies, events often marked by high mortality, have until recently excluded palliative care-a specialty focusing on supporting people with serious or terminal illness or those nearing death. In the COVID-19 pandemic, palliative care has received unprecedented levels of societal attention. Unfortunately, this has not been enough to prevent patients dying alone, relatives not being able to say goodbye and palliative care being used instead of intensive care due to resource limitations. Yet global guidance was available. In 2018, the WHO released a guide on 'Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises'-the first guidance on the topic by an international body.

AIMS

This paper argues that while a landmark document, the WHO guide took a narrowly clinical bioethics perspective and missed crucial moral dilemmas. We argue for adding a population-level bioethics lens, which draws forth complex moral dilemmas arising from the fact that groups having differential innate and acquired resources in the context of social and historical determinants of health. We discuss dilemmas concerning: limitations of material and human resources; patient prioritisation; euthanasia; and legacy inequalities, discrimination and power imbalances.

IMPLICATIONS

In parts of the world where opportunity for preparation still exists, and as countries emerge from COVID-19, planners must consider care for the dying. Immediate steps to support better resolutions to ethical dilemmas of the provision of palliative care in humanitarian and emergency contexts will require honest debate; concerted research effort; and international, national and local ethical guidance.

The Perfect Moral Storm: Diverse Ethical Considerations in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has both exposed and created deep rifts in society. It has thrust us into deep ethical thinking to help justify the difficult decisions many will be called upon to make and to protect from decisions that lack ethical underpinnings. This paper aims to highlight ethical issues in six different areas of life highlighting the enormity of the task we are faced with globally. In the context of COVID-19, we consider health inequity, dilemmas in triage and allocation of scarce resources, ethical issues associated with research, ethical considerations relating to tracing apps, and exit strategies such as immunity passports and COVID-19 vaccines. Finally, we consider environmental issues in light of COVID-19. The paper also offers some ethical reflection on these areas as many parts of the world contemplate the recovery phase.

Utility and justice in public health

Background

Many public health practitioners and organizations view themselves as engaged in the promotion or achievement of equity. However, discussions around public health frequently assume that practitioners and policy-makers take a utilitarian approach to this work.

Methods

I argue that public health is better understood as a social justice endeavor. I begin by presenting the utility view of public health and then discuss the equity view. This is a theoretical argument, which should help public health to justify interventions for communicable and non-communicable diseases equally, and which contributes to breaking down the 'old/new' public health divide.

Results

This argument captures practitioners' views of the work they are engaged in and allows for the moral and policy justification of important interventions in communicable and non-communicable diseases. Systemic interventions are necessary to remedy high rates of disease among certain groups and, generally, to improve the health of entire populations.

Conclusions

By viewing diseases as partly the result of failures of health protective systems in society, public health may justify interventions in communicable and non-communicable diseases equally. Public health holds a duty to improve the health of the worst-off in society; by prioritizing this group, the health of the whole community may improve.

Does Resolution 8430 of 1993 respond to the current needs of ethics in health research with human beings in Colombia?

Verifying the compliance with the ethical principles of health research legitimizes its exercise in the eyes of the society and allows for the resolution of ethical dilemmas that emerge from new research interests and methods. Resolution 8430 of 1993 is one of the main ethical guidelines governing health research on human beings in Colombia. Considering that the resolution has not been revised or updated since its promulgation it becomes necessary to evaluate its current validity and adequacy to address the potential ethical dilemmas in the existing country’s health research. Some gaps, contradictions, and aspects that require a deep review are detailed in this paper from a wide conception of health research areas and methods. After discussing the main weaknesses and inaccuracies, some alternatives are proposed to adjust the resolution to the present needs in health research with human beings.

Public Health Disasters

Public health disasters reflect the uncharted conceptual, ethical, and pragmatic intersections between public health ethics and the emerging discourse on disaster bioethics. This novel concept reflects public health issues with calamitous social consequences such as infectious disease outbreaks, the attendant public health impacts of natural or man-made disasters, and currently latent or low prevalence public health issues with the potential to rapidly acquire pandemic capacities. The attendant moral dilemmas that PHDs generate have local and global dimensions. For this reason, they demand a multifaceted ethically grounded and pragmatically oriented approach. This chapter presents the conceptual foreground to the ethical and pragmatic dimensions of these issues.

Are Military and Medical Ethics Necessarily Incompatible? A Canadian Case Study

Military physicians are often perceived to be in a position of 'dual loyalty' because they have responsibilities towards their patients but also towards their employer, the military institution. Further, they have to ascribe to and are bound by two distinct codes of ethics (i.e., medical and military), each with its own set of values and duties, that could at first glance be considered to be very different or even incompatible. How, then, can military physicians reconcile these two codes of ethics and their distinct professional/institutional values, and assume their responsibilities towards both their patients and the military institution? To clarify this situation, and to show how such a reconciliation might be possible, we compared the history and content of two national professional codes of ethics: the Defence Ethics of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association. Interestingly, even if the medical code is more focused on duties and responsibility while the military code is more focused on core values and is supported by a comprehensive ethical training program, they also have many elements in common. Further, both are based on the same core values of loyalty and integrity, and they are broad in scope but are relatively flexible in application. While there are still important sources of tension between and limits within these two codes of ethics, there are fewer differences than may appear at first glance because the core values and principles of military and medical ethics are not so different.

Mandatory Influenza Immunization for Health Care Workers—An Ethical Discussion

Influenza is a serious vaccine-preventable disease affecting 20% of the U.S. population each year. Vaccination of high-risk groups has been called the single most important influenza control measure by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Studies show that vaccination can lead to decreases in flu-related illness and absenteeism among health care workers, as well as fewer acute care outbreaks and reduced patient mortality in long-term care settings. However, to date, voluntary programs have achieved only a 40% vaccination rate among health care workers, causing concern among government and infectious disease organizations. This article addresses the ethical justification for mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Health care workers' attitudes toward vaccination are presented, as well as historical and legal perspectives on compulsory measures. The ethical principles of effectiveness, beneficence, necessity, autonomy, justice, and transparency are discussed.

Zika virus infection in Brazil and human rights obligations

The February 2016 WHO declaration that congenital Zika virus syndrome constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern reacted to the outbreak of the syndrome in Brazil. Public health emergencies can justify a spectrum of human rights responses, but in Brazil, the emergency exposed prevailing inequities in the national healthcare system. The government's urging to contain the syndrome, which is associated with microcephaly among newborns, is confounded by lack of reproductive health services. Women with low incomes in particular have little access to such health services. The emergency also illuminates the harm of restrictive abortion legislation, and the potential violation of human rights regarding women's health and under the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child and on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Suggestions have been proposed by which the government can remedy the widespread healthcare inequities among the national population that are instructive for other countries where congenital Zika virus syndrome is prevalent.

Means, ends and the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns

Controversy has swirled over the past three decades about the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns. The HIV/AIDS epidemic provided a context in which advocacy groups were almost uniformly hostile to any use of fear, arguing that it was inherently stigmatising and always backfired. Although this argument was often accepted within public health circles, surprisingly, the bioethicists who first grappled with this issue in terms of autonomy and coercion in the 1980s were not single-minded: fear could be autonomy-enhancing. But by the turn of the 21st century, as opponents of fear-based appeals linked them to stigmatisation, ethicists typically rejected fear as inherently unethical. The evidence has increasingly suggested that fear-based campaigns 'work.' Emotionally charged public health messages have, as a consequence, become more commonplace. We conclude that an ethics of public health, which prioritises population well-being, as contrasted with the contemporary focus of bioethics on autonomy, provides a moral warrant for ensuring that populations understand health risk 'in their guts.' This, we argue, does not relieve public health authorities from considering the burdens their efforts may impose on vulnerable populations.

In the Name of Population Well-Being: The Case for Public Health Surveillance

Surveillance is the radar of public health. Without tracking, often by name, the incidence and prevalence of both infectious and chronic disease, health officials would be unable to understand where and how to potentially intervene or what resources might be required to protect populations. Surveillance without individual informed consent has been challenged in the name of both bioethics and human rights. In this article we contend that a robust conception of public health not only justifies surveillance but, without disregarding the need to respect individuals, provides an affirmative duty to engage in surveillance. There may be social and political circumstances in which the names of those reported cannot be protected from unwarranted disclosure and misuse for ends that have little to do with protecting the public's health. But while the potential for misuse requires an ongoing, searching scrutiny of disease surveillance, remote or hypothetical threats should not serve to undermine this vital public health activity.

Content of Public Health Ethics Postgraduate Courses in the United States

This paper evaluates the content of the syllabi of postgraduate courses on public health ethics (PHE) within accredited schools and programs of public health (PH) in the United States in order to gain an awareness of the topics addressed within these courses.

METHODS

Data was gathered via the analysis of syllabi of courses on PHE. In 2012, information was requested by e-mail from the 48 schools and 86 PH programs accredited by the U.S. Council on Education for Public Health for 2012. The "Epidemiology and PHE Syllabi" project of the University of Miami also was consulted. A table of topics was drawn up in order to carry out content analysis of the documents.

RESULTS

Data was obtained from 25 schools (52%) and 36 accredited programs (42%); 36 syllabi were gathered and 75 different topics were found. Of these, 38 topics were addressed in six or more syllabi and can be grouped as follows: foundations of PHE; autonomy and its limits; infectious disease control; justice; research ethics; health education and promotion; environmental and occupational health; screening; genetics; privacy and confidentiality; and community-based practice and vulnerable populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The analyzed syllabi show high variability in curricular content. The debate with regard to whether a core curriculum on PHE should be established is ongoing. The results of this work might be of interest for schools and programs of PH in other countries or regions of the world in order to develop or ameliorate their own PHE syllabi.

Developing public health ethics learning modules - can we learn from critical pedagogy?

Curriculum development in masters of public health programs that effectively meets the complex ethical challenges of the 21st century is an important part of public health education and requires ethical reasoning and purposively thinking. Current master programs in Public Health do not regularly include modules in public health ethics. The aim of this paper is to present background and theoretical foundation for developing a methodology and methods to develop public health ethics modules for curriculum development in public health programs. We describe ethical reasoning in medicine and in Public Health, specify pedagogical approaches and key assignments organized around the critical pedagogy.

Towards public health ethics

Health is a value, both objective and subjective, yet it is not the only value that contributes to the well-being of persons. In public health, there are different connotations of the term “public” relevant from an ethical perspective: population, government action, and collective action of the community. Ethics seeks to provide a basis for and justify moral decisions and actions. Ethics asks, why should I do it?, and the reply consists of an argument. The type of ethics that underpins applied ethics in general, and bioethics in particular, is civic ethics, a philosophical reflection on the criteria that enable the peaceful coexistence of citizens with different morals. Progress means emancipation as well as an increase of autonomy. However, more is not always better, and now we know that no health intervention, including a public health intervention, is risk-free. The false belief that undergoing a prevention intervention is always better than doing nothing explains, at least in part, that in contrast to bioethics, only recently have the ethical implications in public health practice been given the attention they deserve. Positive externalities in third parties, such as in vaccination programmes or policies to prevent harm to passive smokers, can occasionally justify the potential risks of a public health intervention. It is in such situations where a conflict might arise between the goal of improving the health of the population and the respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual that characterizes the dilemmas in public health ethics. In conclusion, it is necessary to have a public health ethics framework and a professional code of ethics applied to public health. The training of public health professionals in ethics is essential to ensure that they feel more confident when it comes to addressing the sheer range of ethical conflicts that they frequently face in the performance of their duties.

Empirical population and public health ethics: A review and critical analysis to advance robust empirical-normative inquiry

The field of population and public health ethics (PPHE) has yet to fully embrace the generation of evidence as an important project. This article reviews the philosophical debates related to the 'empirical turn' in clinical bioethics, and critically analyses how PPHE has and can engage with the philosophical implications of generating empirical data within the task of normative inquiry. A set of five conceptual and theoretical issues pertaining to population health that are unresolved and could potentially benefit from empirical PPHE approaches to normative inquiry are discussed. Each issue differs from traditional empirical bioethical approaches, in that they emphasize (1) concerns related to the population, (2) 'upstream' policy-relevant health interventions - within and outside of the health care system and (3) the prevention of illness and disease. Within each theoretical issue, a conceptual example from population and public health approaches to HIV prevention and health promotion is interrogated. Based on the review and critical analysis, this article concludes that empirical-normative approaches to population and public health ethics would be most usefully pursued as an iterative project (rather than as a linear project), in which the normative informs the empirical questions to be asked and new empirical evidence constantly directs conceptualizations of what constitutes morally robust public health practices. Finally, a conceptualization of an empirical population and public health ethics is advanced in order to open up new interdisciplinary 'spaces', in which empirical and normative approaches to ethical inquiry are transparently (and ethically) integrated.

Backward- and forward-looking responsibility for obesity: policies from WHO, the EU and England

BACKGROUND

In assigning responsibility for obesity prevention a distinction may be drawn between who is responsible for the rise in obesity prevalence ('backward-looking responsibility'), and who is responsible for reducing it ('forward-looking responsibility').

METHODS

We study how the two aspects of responsibility figure in the obesity policies of WHO (European Region), the EU and the Department of Health (England).

RESULTS

Responsibility for the emergence and reduction of obesity is assigned to both individuals and other actors to different degrees in the policies, combining an individual and a systemic view. The policies assign backward-looking responsibility to individuals, the social environment, the authorities and businesses. When it comes to forward-looking responsibility, individuals are expected to play a central role in reducing and preventing obesity, but other actors are also urged to act. WHO assigns to individuals the lowest degree of backward- and forward-looking responsibility, and the Department of Health (England) assigns them the highest degree of responsibility.

DISCUSSION

Differences in the assignment of backward- and above all forward-looking responsibility could be explained to some extent by the different roles of the three authorities making the plans. WHO is a UN agency with health as its goal, the EU is a liberal economic union with optimization of the internal European market as an important task, and England, as an independent sovereign country, has its own economic responsibilities.

The Ethics of Infection Control: Philosophical Frameworks

Recent developments that are relevant to the ethics of infection control include the patient safety movement, the appearance of new diseases (notably, severe acute respiratory syndrome) that pose threats to healthcare workers, data confirming the suspicion that infection control measures such as isolation may compromise patient care, and, in philosophy, renewed interest in virtue ethics and communitarianism. We review general ethical frameworks and relevant vocabulary for infection control practitioners and hospital epidemiologists. Frameworks for the ethics of infection control resemble those of public health more than those of clinical medicine but embrace elements of both. The optimum framework, we suggest, takes into account a virtue-based communitarianism. The virtue ethics movement stresses the need to consider not only rules and outcomes but also the character of the individual(s) involved. Communitarianism emphasizes the well-being and values of local communities, best determined by shared, democratic decision making among stakeholders. Brief discussions of 15 consecutive cases illustrate the extent to which the daily practice of infection control poses problems heavily freighted with ethical overtones.

Ethics, equality and evidence in health promotion Danish guidelines for municipalities

AIM

The Danish National Board of Health has expressed its commitment to social equality in health, evidence-informed health promotion and public health ethics, and has issued guidelines for municipalities on health promotion, in Danish named prevention packages. The aim of this article is to analyse whether the Board of Health adheres to ideals of equality, evidence and ethics in these guidelines.

METHODS

An analysis to detect statements about equity, evidence and ethics in 10 health promotion packages directed at municipalities with the aim of guiding the municipalities towards evidence-informed disease prevention and health promotion.

RESULTS

Despite declared intentions of prioritizing social equality in health, these intentions are largely absent from most of the packages. When health inequalities are mentioned, focus is on the disadvantaged or the marginalized. Several interventions are recommended, where there is no evidence to support them, notwithstanding the ambition of interventions being evidence-informed. Ethical considerations are scanty, scattered and unsystematically integrated. Further, although some packages mention the importance of avoiding stigmatization, there is little indicating how this could be done.

CONCLUSIONS

Including reduction of health inequalities and evidence-informed and ethically defendable interventions in health promotion is a challenge, which is not yet fully met by the National Board of Health. When judged from liberal ethical principles, only few of the suggested interventions are acceptable, i.e., those concerning information, but from a paternalistic view, all interventions that may actually benefit the citizens are justified.

How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies

Informed consent is crucial in research, but potential participants may not all speak the same language, posing questions that have not been examined concerning decisions by institutional review boards (IRBs) and research ethics committees' (RECs) about the need for researchers to translate consent forms and other study materials. Sixty US IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by The National Institutes of Health funding) were contacted, and leaders (eg, chairs) from 34 (response rate=57%) and an additional 12 members and administrators were interviewed. IRBs face a range of problems about translation of informed consent documents, questionnaires and manuals-what, when and how to translate (eg, for how many or what proportion of potential subjects), why to do so and how to decide. Difficulties can arise about translation of specific words and of broader cultural concepts regarding processes of informed consent and research, especially in the developing world. In these decisions, IRBs weigh the need for autonomy (through informed consent) and justice (to ensure fair distribution of benefits and burdens of research) against practical concerns about costs to researchers. At times IRBs may have to compromise between these competing goals. These data, the first to examine when and how IRBs/RECs require researchers to translate materials, thus highlight a range of problems with which these committees struggle, suggesting a need for further normative and empirical investigation of these domains, and consideration of guidelines to help IRBs deal with these tensions.

Defining the Scope of Public Engagement: Examining the "Right Not to Know" in Public Health Genomics

In this article, we explore the concept of a "right not to know" on a population rather than individual level. We argue that a population level "right not to know" is a useful concept for helping to define the appropriate boundaries of public engagement initiatives in the emerging public health genomics context.

Patient and citizen participation in health: the need for improved ethical support

Patient and citizen participation is now regarded as central to the promotion of sustainable health and health care. Involvement efforts create and encounter many diverse ethical challenges that have the potential to enhance or undermine their success. This article examines different expressions of patient and citizen participation and the support health ethics offers. It is contended that despite its prominence and the link between patient empowerment and autonomy, traditional bioethics is insufficient to guide participation efforts. In addition, the turn to a "social paradigm" of ethics in examinations of biotechnologies and public health does not provide an account of values that is commensurable with the pervasive autonomy paradigm. This exacerbates rather than eases tensions for patients and citizens endeavoring to engage with health. Citizen and patient participation must have a significant influence on the way we do health ethics if its potential is to be fulfilled.

Health Technology, Quality, Law, and Ethics

Technology assessment capability is vital in determining health policy and priorities because science and technology changes occur rapidly and are essential for progress. Quality is promoted by high professional education and practice standards, accreditation by state and non governmental authorities for health provider institutions, public health departments as well as educational program for public health, health policy and health management. Quality is an ongoing challenge in health care and public health. New innovations and therapies change the nature of care and prevention, with important epidemic and epidemiologic effects. Adoption of new evidence based methods of prevention, diagnosis and therapy have and will continue to improve quality of life and longevity. Translation of scientific and technological advances into applied practice requires education of public health policy makers, and practitioners to be well trained to evaluate new evidence and keep up with rapidly changing capacity to address old and new challenges in public health. The context of public health is set in legal frameworks and ethical standards developed over many millennia, centuries and decades which need continuous revision in keeping with societal changes and norms. Law and ethics in public health reflect the societal values in the context of social, economic, demographic, epidemiologic and political changes, while facing new health challenges and new technologies. Health ethics needed to be reexamined in the light of medical participation in 20th century genocides in the name of racial purity and industrialized murder of millions in World War II. The Nuremberg Trials redefined ethics of health research and bioethics. Public health works to protect the population from illness and premature death, often with restrictions such as in cigarette advertisement and smoking. Failure to act in protection of public health can be unethical by denying best practices in health protection and health promotion.

Food and beverage policies and public health ethics

Government food and beverage policies can play an important role in promoting public health. Few people would question this assumption. Difficult questions can arise, however, when policymakers, public health officials, citizens, and businesses deliberate about food and beverage policies, because competing values may be at stake, such as public health, individual autonomy, personal responsibility, economic prosperity, and fairness. An ethically justified policy strikes a reasonable among competing values by meeting the following criteria: (1) the policy serves important social goal(s); (2) the policy is likely to be effective at achieving those goal(s); (3) less burdensome options are not likely to be effective at achieving the goals; (4) the policy is fair.

Clinical uncertainties, health service challenges, and ethical complexities of HIV "test-and-treat": a systematic review

Despite the HIV "test-and-treat" strategy's promise, questions about its clinical rationale, operational feasibility, and ethical appropriateness have led to vigorous debate in the global HIV community. We performed a systematic review of the literature published between January 2009 and May 2012 using PubMed, SCOPUS, Global Health, Web of Science, BIOSIS, Cochrane CENTRAL, EBSCO Africa-Wide Information, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus databases to summarize clinical uncertainties, health service challenges, and ethical complexities that may affect the test-and-treat strategy's success. A thoughtful approach to research and implementation to address clinical and health service questions and meaningful community engagement regarding ethical complexities may bring us closer to safe, feasible, and effective test-and-treat implementation.