Search

Abstract Individuals who reside in a country without regular authorisation generally find it difficult to access public medical services beyond emergency treatment. Even in countries with universal healthcare, there is often a gap between rights on paper and their implementation. Civil society organisations (CSOs) fill this gap by providing medical services to vulnerable populations, including irregular migrants. What, if any, are the ethical dilemmas that arise for CSO staff when delivering such services in countries with universal healthcare? Under what conditions do these dilemmas arise? And what strategies do CSO staff use to mitigate them? We answer these questions using 40 semi-structured interviews with CSO staff working in two European countries with high levels of irregularity, universal healthcare provisions on paper, and significant differences in approaches and availability of public services for irregular migrants: Italy and Spain. We show that CSO staff providing medical services to irregular migrants in places with universal healthcare coverage face a fundamental dilemma between humanitarianism and equity. CSO staff respond to the humanitarian belief in the value of taking all possible steps to prevent or alleviate human suffering, thus promoting a decent quality of life that includes access to both emergency and non-emergency care. In doing so, however, they run the risk of substituting rather than complementing public provisions, thereby preventing governments from assuming responsibility for these services in the long term. Individuals who acknowledge the existence of this dilemma generally oppose the creation of parallel structures; that is, services specifically developed for irregular migrants outside the public system; while those who ignore it essentially subscribe to a tiered system, giving up on considerations of equity. We argue that CSOs involved in the provision of healthcare to irregular migrants do not simply provide services; they also play an inherently political role.

ABSTRACT This paper highlights the vital connection between intersectional ecofeminism and veganism as profound ethical and political practices. It critically engages with the ideas of feminist philosophers Val Plumwood and Donna Haraway, revealing how their contributions, while significant in critical animal studies and ecological philosophies, inadvertently allow continued exploitation of non-human animals, especially for food. Drawing from neo-materialist feminism and recent developments in political veganism, this paper underscores the ethical and ecological imperatives for an intersectional and radical veganism. This approach seeks to deconstruct biopolitical structures upholding non-human oppression, envisioning liberation for sentient beings and ecological restoration. It argues that the boundaries between ecofeminism, veganism, and multispecies justice should blur to dismantle systems rooted in human exceptionalism and ensure non-human animals are not treated as mere tools. In conclusion, this paper advocates for a holistic approach to non-human liberation, emphasizing the urgent need to strengthen the bonds between ecofeminism and veganism. This union challenges prevailing biopolitical systems and paves the way forgenuine liberation for all sentient beings, both human and non-human.

Technology qualifying as human mood enhancement can be developed, on the one hand, for the well-being and mental health of their users (therapy) and, on the other hand, for changing the mood of their users above levels of normality (enhancement). Such technology provokes debates concerning its societal, ethical and legal consequences for individuals and society as a whole. This paper’s aim is twofold. It first aims to show an overview of the often-occurring arguments in the ethics debate about mood enhancement technology and outline which arguments should be considered relevant for supporting the legislative debate. The second aim of the paper is to highlight some of the main legal aspects concerning this technology through the human rights lens of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the European Union.

Risk governance of nanomaterials and nanotechnologies has been traditionally mainly limited to risk assessment, risk management and life cycle assessment. Recent approaches have experimented with widening the scope and including economic, social, and ethical aspects. This paper reports on tests and stakeholder feedback on fine-tuning the use of ethical impact assessment guidelines (RiskGONE D3.6) and online tools adapting the CEN Workshop Agreement part 2 CWA 17145-2:2017 (E)) to support risk governance of nanomaterials, in the RiskGONE project. The EIA guidelines and tools are intended to be used as one module in a multicriteria decision support framework for risk governance of nanomaterials, but may also be used for a stand-alone ethical impact assessment.