Search

Following the recent condemnation of the National Health Service charging regulations by medical colleges and the UK Faculty of Public Health, we demonstrate that through enactment of this policy, the medical profession is betraying its core ethical principles. Through dissection of the policy using Beauchamp and Childress' framework, a disrespect for autonomy becomes evident in the operationalisation of the charging regulations, just as a disregard for confidentiality was apparent in the data sharing Memorandum of Understanding. Negative consequences of the regulations are documented to highlight their importance for clinical decision makers under the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Exploration of the principle of justice illuminates the core differentiation between the border-bound duties of the State and borderless duties of the clinician, exposing a fundamental tension., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JMKR was a member of Medact Migrant Solidarity Group but she has written this piece in her academic role., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

During the past two years, much of my work at The Hastings Center has explored the implementation of health reform in the United States and its implications for poor and vulnerable groups. These projects include a study of access to care for undocumented patients and one that examines state-level decisions about health reform, including Medicaid expansion and the creation of health insurance "marketplaces." Both raise issues central to bioethics, including fairness, justice, and the stewardship of society's resources. Our nation spent about 2.7 trillion dollars on health care in 2012, and its major public health insurance programs represent over 20 percent of the federal budget. Despite these investments, there are troubling differences in life expectancy, infant mortality, and premature death depending on factors like income, race, ethnicity, gender, and where people live., (© 2013 by The Hastings Center.)

The number of patients with young onset dementia (YOD) (that is before age 65) is estimated at 32,000 in France, and 5000 with onset dementia before 60 years. These patients differ from older ones by the greater number of rares causes (29%), heterogeneity of the presentation among the usual diseases, such as non-amnestic phenotypes of Alzheimer's disease, high frequency of frontal symptoms, and possible genetic origin. These aspects must be taken into account for the diagnosis, often more difficult than in older ones because patients have a little knowledge of the YOD, excepted in the genetics forms. YOD patients can still work or drive a car, and we should choose between the respect for autonomy and the security for the patient and their carers. YOD patients can be more often included in pharmacological trials because they have lower associated disorders. Individual non-pharmacological treatment should be priviledged because they don't easily accept collective activities with other patients over 60 years of age. Excepted for the very young patients (onset before 45), the survival is longer than in late onset dementia, with sometimes severe behavioral problems related to frontal syndrome. In France, the caregiving at home has been improved since the possibility for the YOD patients to receive a financial assistance reserved for the disabled patients, but admission to a nursing home before 60 is very difficult and increases the caregiver burden and perception of unfairness. There is a discrimination between young or older demented patients related to the great difficulty to meet the needs of younger patients, due to the rigidity of the medical and social systems. The presentation of a limited offer for the YOD patients must initiate reflections on our capacities to respect the autonomy and the dignity of the Alzheimer's patients regardless of age.

Certain restrictions on public funding for assisted reproductive technology (ART) are articulated and defended by recourse to a distinction between medical infertility and social infertility. We propose that underlying the prioritization of medical infertility is a vision of medicine whose proper role is to restore but not to improve upon nature. We go on to mark moral responses that speak of investments many continue to make in nature as properly an object of reverence and gratitude and therein (sometimes) a source of moral guidance. We draw on the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein in arguing for the plausibility of an appeal to nature in opposition to the charge that it must contain a logical fallacy. We also invite consideration of the moral plausibility of some appeal to nature. Finally, we examine what follows in the case of ART. Should medicine respect as natural limits that should not be overcome: the need for a man and a woman in reproduction; menopause; and even declining fertility with age? We must first ask ourselves to what degree we should defer to nature in the conduct of medicine, at least in the particular if not the general case. This will involve also asking ourselves what we think is natural and in what instances and spirit might we defy nature. Divergent opinions and policies concerning who should receive ART treatment and public funding are more easily understood in view of the centrality, complexity and fundamental nature of these questions., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Current strategies to address global inequities in access to life-saving vaccines use averaged national income data to determine eligibility. While largely successful in the lowest income countries, we argue that this approach could lead to significant inefficiencies from the standpoint of justice if applied to middle-income countries, where income inequalities are large and lead to national averages that obscure truly needy populations. Instead, we suggest alternative indicators more sensitive to social justice concerns that merit consideration by policy-makers developing new initiatives to redress health inequities in middle-income countries., (© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Despite a growing global commitment to the provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART), its availability is still likely to be less than the need. This imbalance raises ethical dilemmas about who should be granted access to publicly-subsidized ART programmes. This paper reviews the eligibility and targeting criteria used in four case-study countries at different points in the scale-up of ART, with the aim of drawing lessons regarding ethical approaches to rationing. Mexico, Senegal, Thailand and Uganda have each made an explicit policy commitment to provide antiretrovirals to all those in need, but are achieving this goal in steps--beginning with explicit rationing of access to care. Drawing upon the case-studies and experiences elsewhere, categories of explicit rationing criteria have been identified. These include biomedical factors, adherence to treatment, prevention-driven factors, social and economic benefits, financial factors and factors driven by ethical arguments. The initial criteria for determining eligibility are typically clinical criteria and assessment of adherence prospects, followed by a number of other factors. Rationing mechanisms reflect several underlying ethical theories and the ethical underpinnings of explicit rationing criteria should reflect societal values. In order to ensure this alignment, widespread consultation with a variety of stakeholders, and not only policy-makers or physicians, is critical. Without such explicit debate, more rationing will occur implicitly and this may be more inequitable. The effects of rationing mechanisms upon equity are critically dependent upon the implementation processes. As antiretroviral programmes are implemented it is crucial to monitor who gains access to these programmes.