Search

The article offers information on the paper "Accommodating religion and belief in healthcare" Joshua Hordern starts by questioning whether the language of accommodation is itself problematic containing an implicit framing assumption that the default is for patients not to be religious. Topics include examines he cites and endorses the worry expressed by Lori Beaman, that this risks automatically biasing discourse against those who are religious by implying that some people's religious views.

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

The differential impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on communities of color in the United States along with the civil unrest taking place in 2020 in response to the killing of unarmed Black men and women by the police have increased awareness of the structural racism pervading US society. These developments have reraised the issue of reparations for Black Americans, usually proposed in the context of providing financial compensation for the injustices of slavery to the descendants of those who were enslaved. This paper will discuss the systematic racial inequality and structural racism in US society that have significantly disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities while giving advantages to white Americans, which most recently have resulted in significantly higher mortality and morbidity among Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans during the pandemic. The paper will conceptualize reparations within the context of theories of reparative justice. It will also consider whether reparations are owed, and if so, by whom, to whom, and in what form. The final section will offer a proposal for collective reparations to the Black community and other people of color. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attempts to decrease socioeconomic health disparities face various challenges, which include ethical questions about prioritization and value-conflicts. To deal with these questions in a way that takes equal standing as a central value, this paper explores the potential of a relational egalitarian capability approach to local health equity policies. Especially for local health equity policies, a relational egalitarian capability approach seems promising as it offers more perspectives for action and evaluation additional to considerations of distributive justice. To scrutinize if this approach can offer an adequate normative basis for health equity policies and be a helpful ethical guide in practice, five desiderata are identified that a relational egalitarian capability approach to local health equity should fulfil. These desiderata stem from a consideration of political-ethical pluralism and scarcity of time and resources as non-ideal conditions characterizing public policy practice, as well as of three questions that any capability approach should answer to be applicable in practice. For each of the five desiderata, a brief outline is given of what relational egalitarian theories and the capability approach offer in response to the questions implied by these desiderata. Ultimately, these questions need to be answered in relation to specific policies in particular contexts., (© 2021 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This paper considers what concept of accommodation is necessary to identify and address discrimination, disadvantages and disparities in such a way that the plurality of religious people with their beliefs, values and practices may be justly accommodated in healthcare. It evaluates threats to the possibility of such accommodation pertaining by considering what beliefs and practices might increase the risk of unjust discrimination against and disadvantage for religious people, whether as individuals or as groups; and the risk of disparities between the care provided to religious people. The claim is that there is an important cluster of risks that are political in kind and emergent within philosophical bioethics. While not amounting (yet) to a trend, they are sufficiently threatening to a just civic life for patients and healthcare staff as to warrant scrutiny. After an Introductory Section 1, Section 2 evaluates a criticism of 'accommodation' and the apparently additional health‐related requirements that those of religious faith demand, when compared with other people. It does so by comparing Lori Beaman's idea of agonism with that of a distinct and somewhat complementary approach in Jonathan Chaplin's political philosophy, before examining the role of established religion in setting the conditions for the accommodation of religion and belief in healthcare. Section 3 examines risks to such accommodation by engaging critically with three health‐related instantiations of political philosophy that differ radically from both Beaman and Chaplin. A concluding Section 4 focusses on appropriate modes of communicating about religious and other beliefs in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical artificial intelligence (MAI) creates an opportunity to radically expand access to healthcare across the globe by allowing us to overcome the persistent labor shortages that limit healthcare access. This democratization of healthcare is the greatest moral promise of MAI. Whatever comes of the enthusiastic discourse about the ability of MAI to improve the state-of-the-art in high-income countries (HICs), it will be far less impactful than improving the desperate state-of-the-actual in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the almost exclusive development of MAI in HICs risks this promise being thwarted by contextual bias, an algorithmic bias that arises when the context of the training data is significantly dissimilar from potential contexts of application, which makes the unreflective application of HIC-based MAI in LMIC contexts dangerous. The use of MAI in LMICs demands careful attention to context. In this paper, I aim to provide that attention. First, I illustrate the dire state of healthcare in LMICs and the hope that MAI may help us to improve this state. Next, I show that the radical differences between the health contexts of HICs and those of LMICs create an extraordinary risk of contextual bias. Then, I explore ethical challenges raised by this risk, and propose policies that will help to overcome those challenges. Finally, I sketch a wide range of related issues that need to be addressed to ensure that MAI has a positive impact on LMICs-and is able to improve, rather than worsen, global health equity., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Attempts to decrease socioeconomic health disparities face various challenges, which include ethical questions about prioritization and value‐conflicts. To deal with these questions in a way that takes equal standing as a central value, this paper explores the potential of a relational egalitarian capability approach to local health equity policies. Especially for local health equity policies, a relational egalitarian capability approach seems promising as it offers more perspectives for action and evaluation additional to considerations of distributive justice. To scrutinize if this approach can offer an adequate normative basis for health equity policies and be a helpful ethical guide in practice, five desiderata are identified that a relational egalitarian capability approach to local health equity should fulfil. These desiderata stem from a consideration of political‐ethical pluralism and scarcity of time and resources as non‐ideal conditions characterizing public policy practice, as well as of three questions that any capability approach should answer to be applicable in practice. For each of the five desiderata, a brief outline is given of what relational egalitarian theories and the capability approach offer in response to the questions implied by these desiderata. Ultimately, these questions need to be answered in relation to specific policies in particular contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We often show a greater inclination to assist and avoid harming people identified as those at high risk of great harm than to assist and avoid harming people who will suffer similar harm but are not identified (as yet). Call this the identified person bias. Some ethicists think such bias is justified; others disagree and claim that the bias is discriminatory against statistical people. While the issue is present in public policy and politics, perhaps the most notable examples can be found in medical ethics such as in ICU triage decisions made during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The Rule of Rescue, as the application of the identified person bias is sometimes called, states that spending large amounts of resources rescuing identifiable individuals who are in imminent danger is justified. In this paper, I show that our distorted attitudes toward time play a role in identified person bias. I claim that ICU triage decisions are better explained by a preference to treat people sooner rather than later, which is at least partially due to near bias (positive events are to be preferred to be near rather than distant), than by a preference to treat identified lives over statistical lives. Thus, another bias, near bias, is involved in the reasoning behind the identified person bias and the Rule of Rescue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we take up the call to further examine structural injustice in health, and racial inequalities in particular. We examine the many facets of racism: structural, interpersonal and institutional as they appeared in the COVID‐19 pandemic in the UK, and emphasize the relevance of their systemic character. We suggest that such inequalities were entirely foreseeable, for their causal mechanisms are deeply ingrained in our social structures. It is by recognizing the conventional, un‐extraordinary nature of racism within social systems that we can begin to address socially mediated health inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Justice is a core principle in bioethics, and a fair opportunity to achieve health is central to this principle. Racism and other forms of prejudice, discrimination, or bias directed against people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group are known contributors to health inequity, defined as unjust differences in health or access to care. Though hospital‐based ethics committees and consultation services routinely address issues of justice that arise in the course of patient care, there is variability in whether and how racism and other causes of health inequities are addressed. In this paper, we describe a novel structure and process for addressing health equity within clinical ethics consultation. In addition, we discuss the barriers and challenges to its success, many of which are rooted in the identities, norms and assumptions that underlie traditional clinical ethics consultation. We offer pragmatic recommendations and conclude with unresolved questions that remain as we work to adapt the structure of a clinical ethics consultation service to improve attention to issues of health equity and promote anti‐racism in patient care and institutional policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on the health of Black Americans, Latinx or Hispanic Americans, and American Indians. These disparities are deeply unjust, in part, because they are the causal result of racism at both the interpersonal and structural levels. This paper argues, however, that establishing a causal connection between racism and health disparities is not the only way to explain the injustice of these disparities. The COVID‐19 health disparities are arguably unjust because health equity is a "free‐standing" demand of justice, an obligation of reparative justice, a remedy to structural injustice, and part of dismantling pernicious racial concepts. Identifying multiple accounts of injustice may lower the evidentiary bar for our normative claims and help us to identify alternative policy pathways for ending health inequity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical artificial intelligence (MAI) creates an opportunity to radically expand access to healthcare across the globe by allowing us to overcome the persistent labor shortages that limit healthcare access. This democratization of healthcare is the greatest moral promise of MAI. Whatever comes of the enthusiastic discourse about the ability of MAI to improve the state‐of‐the‐art in high‐income countries (HICs), it will be far less impactful than improving the desperate state‐of‐the‐actual in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). However, the almost exclusive development of MAI in HICs risks this promise being thwarted by contextual bias, an algorithmic bias that arises when the context of the training data is significantly dissimilar from potential contexts of application, which makes the unreflective application of HIC‐based MAI in LMIC contexts dangerous. The use of MAI in LMICs demands careful attention to context. In this paper, I aim to provide that attention. First, I illustrate the dire state of healthcare in LMICs and the hope that MAI may help us to improve this state. Next, I show that the radical differences between the health contexts of HICs and those of LMICs create an extraordinary risk of contextual bias. Then, I explore ethical challenges raised by this risk, and propose policies that will help to overcome those challenges. Finally, I sketch a wide range of related issues that need to be addressed to ensure that MAI has a positive impact on LMICs—and is able to improve, rather than worsen, global health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, a controversial criterion for allocating scarce medical treatment has been defended and incorporated into policy: the criterion of equity. Equity‐included allocation schemes prioritize, to some degree, patients from marginalized or historically disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups, or patients with low socioeconomic status, for scarce treatment. The use of such criteria has been most prominently defended in two ways: (1) as reflecting a risk factor for severe COVID‐19, and thus as a way of tracking medical need, and (2) as a form of remedial justice, viz. a way of redressing disparities in COVID outcomes that are caused by underlying unjust social conditions. Here, we delineate and critique those arguments. We argue that not only are such arguments unconvincing but also that there are compelling moral reasons to reject the sort of equity‐included allocation schemes at issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on racism in healthcare and bioethics. Topics include COVID‐19 creating and reinforcing health disparities disproportionately harming Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other minoritized communities; and extending the academic, legal, policy, and public discourse on racism in bioethics and health.

There is ongoing debate on how to fairly allocate scarce critical care resources to patients with COVID‐19. The debate revolves around two views: those who believe that priority for scarce resources should primarily aim at saving the most lives (SML) or at saving the most life‐years, and those who believe that public health should focus on health equity to address health disparities and social determinants of health. I argue that maximizing medical outcomes by saving the greatest number of patients is not a plausible strategy for combating COVID‐19. There are reasons of fairness to give each patient who can meet general eligibility requirements a chance of being saved. Rather than focusing on outcome maximization, a better solution would be the individualist lottery that takes account of probability of survival and duration of treatment. Although the individualist lottery allocates scarce resources in a fair way that is responsive to health equity concerns, it still gives considerable weight to the concern of SML. Thus, this procedure can be reasonably accepted by all key stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The post‐genomics era promises a revolution characterized by precision medicine and the integration of genomics into almost every area of biomedical research. At the same time, there are concerns that if care is not taken, the genomics revolution may widen global inequities in science and health. In Africa, these concerns are primarily linked to the underrepresentation of African populations in genomics research, limited genomics research capacity in Africa and associated macro‐level justice issues such as benefit sharing, inequitable international research collaborations, and the contribution of genomics to the health and research priorities of Africa. Addressing these concerns requires an in‐depth reflection on how the ideals of global justice and equity may be advanced in genomics research. To contribute to the limited but growing scholarship on global genomics equity, especially in the African context, we performed a conceptual analysis of three accounts of justice and governance namely, Ubuntu, shared health governance and global governance of health, with the aim of identifying principles that could inform genomics governance in Africa. We used a convergence approach in the conceptual analysis, resulting in the identification of nine principles namely: solidarity, furthering the ideals of health justice, reciprocity, shared decision‐making, shared resources, shared responsibility, mutual trust, transparency, and mutual collective accountability. Examples of how the principles may be applied are provided. We recommend that these principles should form the foundation of any mechanism that seeks to systematically advance justice, fairness and equity in genomics research in Africa and more broadly, global health and science equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on current approach to the accommodation of religious values and practices in public healthcare systems around the world is ad hoc, potentially discriminatory and can be harmful to patients and families. Topics include considered many countries are becoming more religiously diverse, and so a systematic approach to such accommodation is needed.