Search

Environmental health remains a niche topic in bioethics, despite being a prominent social determinant of health. In this paper we argue that if bioethicists are to take the project of health justice as a serious one, then we have to address environmental injustices and the threats they pose to our bioethics principles, health equity, and clinical care. To do this, we lay out three arguments supporting prioritizing environmental health in bioethics based on bioethics principles including a commitment to vulnerable populations and justice. We also highlight and advocate for environmental law efforts that align with these priorities, focusing specifically on the need for a right to a healthy environment. Our intention is to draw attention to the legal and ethical concepts that underlie the importance of a healthy environment, and urge bioethicists to prioritize both legal and ethical advocacy against environmental injustices in their practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we present the results of a scoping review in which we examined the scientific literature (2010–2021) on faith-based organizations (FBOs) working within the field of poverty alleviation, focusing on the way studies define and use the term FBO. Fifty-two relevant studies were identified and included. Our research shows that the term FBOs is primarily used in American studies. Moreover, there is no broad consensus on the exact definition or meaning of the term nor on its scope. Because of this lack of consensus and the inherent shortcomings of the term, we suggest to replace the term FBO by the term "religion-based solidarity initiatives" (RSIs), We define RSIs as: "Initiatives that, from a religious inspiration, aim at organizing collective action for and/or providing support or services to people in vulnerable positions." These initiatives can range from small scale ad hoc initiatives till large scale formal organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public health officials promoted COVID-19 vaccines to limit burdens placed on the U.S. healthcare system and end the pandemic. People in some closed religious communities refused to vaccinate and likely acquired temporary immunity through infection. This paper compares the death rates in Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and conservative Mennonite groups to a rate estimated for the U.S. population. Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population was immunized against COVID-19, while few in the Amish/Mennonite community were. We find divergent patterns. Once vaccines became available, excess deaths declined in the general population and remained elevated among Amish and Mennonites. Vaccination campaigns must consider and value the cultural beliefs of closed religious communities to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impacts of this pandemic have not been felt equally. The current pandemic has aggravated preexisting prejudices and shed light on long-standing social, economic, and health inequities that have been and continue to be perpetuated by systems of oppression. Psychologists are in a unique position to collaboratively work with marginalized individuals navigating pandemic threat, discrimination, and oppressive systems. This paper presents best practice recommendations for U.S.-based psychologists working with marginalized populations impacted by COVID-19. Psychologists are encouraged to synchronously develop the following three areas of evidence-based practice, as they relate to the impacts of COVID-19: (a) self-reflection and self-awareness in a COVID-19 context (i.e., reflecting on one's identities and one's knowledge and attitudes toward sociohistorical inequities), (b) knowledge acquisition (i.e., adopting an attitude of cultural humility, identifying "emotional contagion," identifying impacts of systemic injustice that may be compounded by COVID-19, and recognizing racial trauma in clients of color), and (c) collaboration with clients (i.e., identify the mental health toll of oppressive systems, explore COVID-19 relevant and culturally responsive methods of healing, encourage virtual community engagement, and incorporate ethnic and racial identity development in personal and professional work). Engaging with these best practice recommendations should result in the psychologist's improved ability to identify and address the consequences of systemic oppression that have been highlighted and exacerbated by COVID-19 on their own behavior and their clients' mental health. Furthermore, psychologists engaged with these best practice recommendations should find themselves better prepared to utilize culturally responsive interventions despite barriers created by COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected. • In fall 2020, survey participants recognized groups harmed by COVID based on age. • They had lower recognition of racial groups harmed, lowest for Native Americans. • Perceptions of groups harmed varies by information exposure and politics. • Perceiving group disparities was associated with more support for pandemic policy. • The racial dynamics surrounding the politics of COVID-19 requires more attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]