Search

In debates over the regulation of communication related to dual-use research, the risks that such communication creates must be weighed against against the value of scientific autonomy. The censorship of such communication seems justifiable in certain cases, given the potentially catastrophic applications of some dual-use research. This conclusion however, gives rise to another kind of danger: that regulators will use overly simplistic cost-benefit analysis to rationalize excessive regulation of scientific research. In response to this, we show how institutional design principles and normative frameworks from free speech theory can be used to help extend the argument for regulating dangerous dual-use research beyond overly simplistic cost-benefit reasoning, but without reverting to an implausibly absolutist view of scientific autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Controlled human infection challenge studies (CHIs) involve intentionally exposing research participants to, and/or thereby infecting them with, micro‐organisms. There have been increased calls for more CHIs to be conducted in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) where many relevant diseases are endemic. This article is based on a research project that identified and analyzed ethical and regulatory issues related to endemic LMIC CHIs via (a) a review of relevant literature and (b) qualitative interviews involving 45 scientists and ethicists with relevant expertise. In this article we argue that though there is an especially strong case for conducting CHIs in endemic (LMIC) settings, certain ethical issues related to the design and conduct of such studies (in such settings) nonetheless warrant particularly careful attention. We focus on ethical implications of endemic LMIC CHIs regarding (a) potential direct benefits for participants, (b) risks to participants, (c) third‐party risks, (d) informed consent, (e) payment of participants, and (f) community engagement. We conclude that there is a strong ethical rationale to conduct (well‐designed) CHIs in endemic LMICs, that certain ethical issues warrant particularly careful consideration, and that ethical analyses of endemic LMIC CHIs can inform current debates in research ethics more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 poses an extraordinary threat to global public health and an effective vaccine could provide a key means of overcoming this crisis. Human challenge studies involve the intentional infection of research participants and can accelerate or improve vaccine development by rapidly providing estimates of vaccine safety and efficacy. Human challenge studies of low virulence coronaviruses have been done in the past and human challenge studies with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been proposed. These studies of coronaviruses could provide considerable benefits to public health; for instance, by improving and accelerating vaccine development. However, human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in particular might be controversial, in part, for ethical reasons. The ethical issues raised by such studies thus warrant early consideration involving, for example, broad consultation with the community. This Personal View provides preliminary analyses of relevant ethical considerations regarding human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, including the potential benefits to public health and to participants, the risks and uncertainty for participants, and the third-party risks (ie, to research staff and the wider community). We argue that these human challenge studies can reasonably be considered ethically acceptable insofar as such studies are accepted internationally and by the communities in which they are done, can realistically be expected to accelerate or improve vaccine development, have considerable potential to directly benefit participants, are designed to limit and minimise risks to participants, and are done with strict infection control measures to limit and reduce third-party risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug‐resistant bacterial infections constitute a major threat to global public health. Several key bacteria that are becoming increasingly resistant are among those that are ubiquitously carried by human beings and usually cause no symptoms (i.e. individuals are asymptomatic carriers) until and/or unless a precipitating event leads to symptomatic infection (and thus disease). Carriers of drug‐resistant bacteria can also transmit resistant pathogens to others, thus putting the latter at risk of resistant infections. Accumulating evidence suggests that such transmission occurs not only in hospital settings but also in the general community, although considerably more data are needed to assess the extent of this problem. Asymptomatic carriage of drug‐resistant bacteria raises important ethical questions regarding the appropriate public health response, including the degree to which it would be justified to impose burdens on asymptomatic carriers (and others) in order to prevent transmission. In this paper, we (i) summarize current evidence regarding the carriage of key drug‐resistant bacteria, noting important knowledge gaps; and (ii) explore the particular implications of existing public health ethics frameworks for policy‐making regarding asymptomatic carriers. Inter alia, we argue that the relative burdens imposed by public health measures on healthy carriers (as opposed to sick individuals) warrant careful consideration and should be proportionate to the expected public health benefits in terms of risks averted. We conclude that more surveillance and research regarding community transmission will be needed in order to clarify relevant risks and design proportionate policies, although extensive community surveillance itself would also require careful ethical consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years there has been an enormous growth of interest in synthetic genomics and synthetic biology, which we collectively refer to as the synthetic life sciences. Rapid progress in this field has enabled the synthesis of biomolecules, whole genomes, and even simple life forms, raising hopes for the development of new bioproducts capable of addressing a wide range of ecological, technological, and biomedical challenges. However, the synthetic life sciences also pose a number of biosecurity and biosafety risks. Numerous regulatory options for the control of synthetic life sciences have been advanced. In this piece, the authors discuss one of those regulatory options: control of trade in DNA sequences. After reviewing the most commonly advanced proposals for regulation of the DNA sequence trade, they consider whether a clearinghouse for centralizing the oversight of all DNA sequence ordering would provide a better means of regulating the DNA sequence trade. They conclude that though a clearinghouse could potentially provide a promising means of regulation, the technology required for an effective clearinghouse is not currently available. Current policy making should be partly concerned with ensuring development of adequate technology for regulation in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2002, three microbiologists announced the artificial synthesis of poliovirus, provoking international outrage and concern that other deadly viruses could also be created. Years later, they look back on their work and discuss ethics, security, and the future of synthetic biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This first part of this article critiques Sridhar Venkatapuram's conception of health as a capability. It argues that Venkatapuram relies on the problematic concept of dignity, implies that those who are unhealthy lack lives worthy of dignity (which seems politically incorrect), sets a low bar for health, appeals to metaphysically problematic thresholds, fails to draw clear connections between appealed-to capabilities and health, and downplays the importance/relevance of health functioning. It concludes by questioning whether justice entitlements should pertain to the capability for health versus health achievements, challenging Venkatapuram's claims about the strength of health entitlements, and demonstrating that the capabilities approach is unnecessary to address social determinants of health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A common strategy in bioethics is to posit a prima facie case in favour of one policy, and to then claim that the burden of proof (that this policy should be rejected) falls on those with opposing views. If the burden of proof is not met, it is claimed, then the policy in question should be accepted. This article illustrates, and critically evaluates, examples of this strategy in debates about the sale of organs by living donors, human enhancement, and the precautionary principle. We highlight general problems with this style of argument, and particular problems with its use in specific cases. We conclude that the burden ultimately falls on decision-makers (i.e. policy-makers) to choose the policy supported by the best reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scenarios where the results of well-intentioned scientific research can be used for both good and harmful purposes give rise to what is now widely known as the "dual-use dilemma". There has been growing debate about the dual-use nature of life science research with implications for making biological weapons. This paper reviews several controversial publications that have been the focus of debates about dual-use life science research and critically examines relevant policy developments, particularly in the United States of America. Though the dual-use dilemma is inherently ethical in nature, the majority of debates about dual-use research have primarily involved science and security experts rather than ethicists. It is important that there is more ethical input into debates about the governance of dual-use research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article advocates the development of a moderate pluralist theory of political philosophy that recognizes that utility, liberty and equality are legitimate, independent social values and that none should have absolute priority over the others. Inter alia, such a theory would provide a principled means for striking a balance, or making trade-offs, between these values in cases of conflict. Recent developments in public health ethics have made progress in thinking about how to make trade-offs between liberty and utility in particular. While public health ethicists often claim that the least restrictive alternative should be used to achieve the public health goal in question, I argue that a plausible but under-recognized idea is that the least restrictive alternative might sometimes involve improvement of global health via redistributive taxation—i.e., rather than coercive social distancing measures. I conclude by demonstrating that the proportionality principle leaves open the question of when exactly utility outweighs liberty or vice versa—and I argue that, rather than speaking about the morality of liberty-infringing public health interventions in categorical/binary terms, it would be more fruitful and realistic to think and speak about the degree to which a liberty-infringing public health intervention is morally appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Securitization of infectious diseases may involve suspension of ordinary human rights and liberties. In the event of an epidemic, therefore, it is important to limit the occasions upon which draconian disease control measures are implemented in the name of security. The term ‘security’, moreover, should not be used too loosely if it is to retain force and meaning in political discourse. It may be argued that the bar for disease securitization should be set high so that it is limited to contexts involving rapidly spreading pathogens. Such an approach, however, would rule out securitization of more slowly spreading, endemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS. An advantage of characterizing HIV/AIDS as a security threat in developing countries, where the burden of the disease is concentrated, is that this is likely to mobilize resources needed to improve the situation there. That is, if HIV/AIDS is convincingly framed as a security threat, then governments may recognize self-interested reasons to ramp up control measures. Following consideration of arguments for narrow (excluding HIV/AIDS) versus broad (including HIV/AIDS) conceptions of security, we conclude that the legitimacy of ‘securitizing’ HIV/AIDS ultimately turns on empirical and semantic issues, and we emphasize the importance of distinguishing (1) the nature of the threat posed by HIV/AIDS and (2) the measures required to address that threat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines cumulative ethical and self-interested reasons why wealthy developed nations should be motivated to do more to improve health care in developing countries. Egalitarian and human rights reasons why wealthy nations should do more to improve global health are that doing so would (1) promote equality of opportunity, (2) improve the situation of the worst-off, (3) promote respect of the human right to have one’s most basic needs met, and (4) reduce undeserved inequalities in well-being. Utilitarian reasons for improving global health are that this would (5) promote the greater good of humankind, and (6) achieve enormous benefits while requiring only small sacrifices. Libertarian reasons are that this would (7) amend historical injustices and (8) meet the obligation to amend injustices that developed world countries have contributed to. Self-interested reasons why wealthy nations should do more to improve global health are that doing so would (9) reduce the threat of infectious diseases to developed countries, (10) promote developed countries’ economic interests, and (11) promote global security. All of these reasons count, and together they add up to make an overwhelmingly powerful case for change. Those opposed to wealthy government funding of developing world health improvement would most likely appeal, implicitly or explicitly, to the idea that coercive taxation for redistributive purposes would violate the right of an individual to keep his hard-earned income. The idea that this reason not to improve global health should outweigh the combination of rights and values embodied in the eleven reasons enumerated above, however, is implausibly extreme, morally repugnant and perhaps imprudent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thomas Pogge has proposed a supplement to the standard patent regime whereby innovating companies would be rewarded in proportion to the extent to which their innovations lead to reduction of the global burden of disease (GBD). This paper argues that an expansion of this proposal—whereby provision of already existing medicines are incentivised in a similar way—would provide a more comprehensive solution to the healthcare situation in developing countries. It then considers the practical challenges that the implementation of such a proposal (expanded or otherwise) would entail. Though these include difficulties associated with disease burden metric, I argue that the most serious difficulties are associated with the problem of causal attribution. A basic idea underlying Pogge's proposal is that the disease burden reduction attributable to particular interventions can be determined. Theoretically speaking, in cases involving multiple interacting causal factors, there may be no fact of the matter regarding the extent to which disease burden reduction should be attributed to one intervention as opposed to another; and (even if workable practical solutions to this theoretical challenge can be met) the data requirements for implementation would be daunting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article reviews ethically relevant history of tuberculosis and recent developments regarding extensively drug resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB). It argues that tuberculosis is one of the most important neglected topics in bioethics. With an emphasis on XDR-TB, it examines a range of the more challenging ethical issues associated with tuberculosis: individual obligations to avoid infecting others, coercive social distancing measures, third-party notification, health workers' duty to treat contagious patients, and international justice. In each of these cases, key philosophical questions are highlighted and the need for empirical research/information is demonstrated. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper reviews the dynamics behind, and ethical issues associated with, the phenomenon of drug resistance. Drug resistance is an important ethical issue partly because of the severe consequences likely to result from the increase in drug resistant pathogens if more is not done to control them. Drug resistance is also an ethical issue because, rather than being a mere quirk of nature, the problem is largely a product of drug distribution. Drug resistance results from the over-consumption of antibiotics by the wealthy; and it, ironically, results from the under-consumption of antibiotics, usually by the poor or otherwise marginalized. In both kinds of cases the phenomenon of drug resistance illustrates why health (care) – at least in the context of infectious disease – should be treated as a (global) public good. The point is that drug resistance involves ‘externalities’ affecting third parties. When one patient develops a resistant strain of disease because of her over- or under-consumption of medication, this more dangerous malady poses increased risk to others. The propriety of free-market distribution of goods subject to externalities is famously dubious – given that the ‘efficiency’ rationale behind markets assumes an absence of externalities. Market failure in the context of drug resistance is partly revealed by the fact that no new classes of antibiotics have been developed since 1970. I conclude by arguing that the case of drug resistance reveals additional reasons – to those traditionally appealed to by bioethicists – for treating health care as something special when making policy decisions about its distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After a history of neglect, bioethicists have recently turned their attention to the topic of infectious disease. In this paper we link bioethicists’ earlier neglect of infectious disease to their under-appreciation of the extent to which the problem of infectious disease is related to social factors and thus to questions of justice. We argue that a social causation of illness model – well-known to sociologists of medicine, but incompletely understood by bioethicists – will improve future bioethical analysis of issues related to infectious disease. By emphasising the relationships between social and economic structures of inequality and health, the social causation model provides a richer approach to ethical issues associated with infectious disease than the more commonly used biomedical model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While UNESCO`s Universal Draft Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights highlights appropriate ethical values, its principles are stated in absolute terms and conflict with one another. The Draft Declaration fails to sufficiently address the possibility of conflict between principles, and it provides no real guidance on how to strike a balance between them in cases where conflict occurs. The document's inadequate treatment of conflicting values is revealed by examination of cases where principles aimed at the promotion of autonomy and liberty conflict with those aimed at benefit maximization and harm minimization. I argue that liberty (and autonomy) may be less important in the context of health care than in other contexts, and I conclude by suggesting specific ways in which some of UNESCO's principles should be revised in order to better address the reality of conflicting values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioethics apparently suffers from a misdistribution of research resources analogous to the‘10/90’ divide in medical research. Though infectious disease should be recognized as a topic of primary importance for bioethics, the general topic of infectious disease has received relatively little attention from the discipline of bioethics in comparison with things like abortion, euthanasia, genetics, cloning, stem cell research, and so on. The fact that the historical and potential future consequences of infectious diseases are almost unrivalled is one reason that the topic of infectious disease warrants more attention from bioethicists. The‘Black Death’ eliminated one third of the European population during the 14th Century; the 1918 flu killed between 20 and 100 million people; and, in the 20th Century smallpox killed perhaps three times more people than all the wars of that period. In the contemporary world, epidemics (of AIDS, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, and newly emerging infectious diseases such as SARS) continue to have dramatic consequences. A second reason why the topic of infectious disease deserves further attention is that it raises difficult ethical questions of its own. While infected individuals can threaten the health of other individuals and society as a whole, for example, public health care measures such as surveillance, isolation, and quarantine can require the infringement of widely accepted basic human rights and liberties. An important and difficult ethical question asks how to strike a balance between the utilitarian aim of promoting public health, on the one hand, and libertarian aims of protecting privacy and freedom of movement, on the other, in contexts involving diseases that are– to varying degrees– contagious, deadly, or otherwise dangerous. Third, since their burden is most heavily shouldered by the poor (in developing countries), infectious diseases deeply involve issues of justice– which should be a central concern of ethics. I conclude by providing sociological and historical explanations of why the topic of infectious disease has not already received more attention from bioethicists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This module examines ethical debates about the level of care that should be provided to human research participants. Particular attention is placed on the question of what should be considered an ethically acceptable control arm. You will also learn what relevant international and domestic regulatory documents say about standards of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the history of smallpox and ethical issues that arise with its threat as a biological weapon. Smallpox killed more people than any infectious disease in history-and perhaps three times more people in the 20th Century than were killed by all the wars of that period. Following a WHO-sponsored global vaccination campaign, smallpox was officially declared eradicated in 1980. It has since been revealed that the Soviet Union, until its fall in the early 1990s, manufactured tens of tons of smallpox for military purposes. A worry is that some of this may have fallen into the hands of "rogue" nations or terrorists. Current U.S. debate questions whether smallpox vaccine should therefore be made available to the American public, which-like the rest of the world-now lacks immunity. Because the vaccine is considerably dangerous, public dialogue cannot resolve this matter if evidence material to the likelihood of attack is classified (i.e. secret). I conclude by recommending numerous future areas for ethics research related to the weaponization of smallpox. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented which discusses various topics including the concept of Saviour Siblings, the book "Saviour Siblings: A Relational Approach to the Welfare of the Child in Selective Reproduction" by Michelle Taylor-Sands and Taylor-Sands' relational model for selective reproduction.

Human infection challenge studies (HCS) have been proposed as a means to accelerate SARS-CoV2 vaccine development and thereby help to mitigate a prolonged global public health crisis. A key criterion for the ethical acceptability of SARS-CoV2 HCS is that potential benefits outweigh risks. Although the assessment of risks and benefits is meant to be a standard part of research ethics review, systematic comparisons are particularly important in the context of SARS-CoV2 HCS in light of the significant potential benefits and harms at stake as well as the need to preserve public trust in research and vaccines. In this paper we explore several considerations that should inform systematic assessment of SARS-CoV-2 HCS. First, we detail key potential benefits of SARS-CoV-2 HCS including, but not limited to, those related to the acceleration of vaccine development. Second, we identify where modelling is needed to inform risk-benefit (and thus ethical) assessments. Modelling will be particularly useful in (i) comparing potential benefits and risks of HCS with those of vaccine field trials under different epidemiological conditions and (ii) estimating marginal risks to HCS participants in light of the background probabilities of infection in their local community. We highlight interactions between public health policy and research priorities, including situations in which research ethics assessments may need to strike a balance between competing considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including moral bioenhancement for human freedom, its compulsion for prevention against catastrophic harms and Degrees of encouragement and discouragement.

The article presents the author's views on a paper by M. Tooley on infanticide. According to the author, moral uncertainty perspective on the moral status of early human life is appropriate for adoption by liberal, democratic governments. The author states that from a secular perspective, one might doubt that much weight should be given to the theoretical possibility that embryos possess souls.

The article presents comments of the author on the research paper "Biodefence and the Production of Knowledge: Rethinking the Problem," by A. Buchanan and M.C. Kelley. The author tells that the main point of the paper is that policy making related to biodefense and dual use should be seen as an optimisation problem.

The article introduces a series of articles on the bioethics of infectious diseases. The topics covered by the featured articles are vaccination policy, bioterrorism, and physicians' duties to treat patients with contagious diseases. Other ethical issues raised in relation to infectious diseases include drug resistance, stigmatization of and discrimination against infected groups or individuals, and developing countries' access to medicines.

Strategies to increase influenza vaccination rates have typically targeted healthcare professionals (HCPs) and individuals in various high-risk groups such as the elderly. We argue that they should (instead or as well) focus on increasing vaccination rates in children. Because children suffer higher influenza incidence rates than any other demographic group, and are major drivers of seasonal influenza epidemics, we argue that influenza vaccination strategies that serve to increase uptake rates in children are likely to be more effective in reducing influenza-related morbidity and mortality than those targeting HCPs or the elderly. This is true even though influenza-related morbidity and mortality amongst children are low, except in the very young. Further, we argue that there are no decisive reasons to suppose that children-focused strategies are less ethically acceptable than elderly or HCP-focused strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on a symposium published in the journal "Monash Bioethics Review," published in the March 2012 issue with commentaries summarising of views of several people on their status involving after-birth abortion.

Focuses on the issues addressed in the articles contained in the 2004 issue of "Developing World Bioethics" in the U.S. Ethical concerns on infectious diseases; Distribution of bioethics research resources; Incentives for pharmacological development; Focus of primary care delivery on addressing inequalities in health across several population groups.

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humanitarian emergencies result in a breakdown of critical health-care services and often make vulnerable communities dependent on external agencies for care. In resource-constrained settings, this may occur against a backdrop of extreme poverty, malnutrition, insecurity, low literacy and poor infrastructure. Under these circumstances, providing food, water and shelter and limiting communicable disease outbreaks become primary concerns. Where effective and safe vaccines are available to mitigate the risk of disease outbreaks, their potential deployment is a key consideration in meeting emergency health needs. Ethical considerations are crucial when deciding on vaccine deployment. Allocation of vaccines in short supply, target groups, delivery strategies, surveillance and research during acute humanitarian emergencies all involve ethical considerations that often arise from the tension between individual and common good. The authors lay out the ethical issues that policy-makers need to bear in mind when considering the deployment of mass vaccination during humanitarian emergencies, including beneficence (duty of care and the rule of rescue), non-maleficence, autonomy and consent, and distributive and procedural justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article talks about the ethics of controlled human infection to address COVID-19 virus. It mentions about the ethical framework for SARS-CoV-2 controlled human infection studies (CHIs) such as need to establish and enforce standards for data collection in SARS-CoV-2 CHIs; and enrolling younger and adult participants without comorbidities.

Malaria currently causes more harm to human beings than any other parasitic disease, and disproportionally affects low-income populations. The ethical issues raised by efforts to control or eliminate malaria have received little explicit analysis, in comparison with other major diseases of poverty. While some ethical issues associated with malaria are similar to those that have been the subject of debate in the context of other infectious diseases, malaria also raises distinct ethical issues in virtue of its unique history, epidemiology, and biology. This paper provides preliminary ethical analyses of the especially salient issues of: (i) global health justice, (ii) universal access to malaria control initiatives, (iii) multidrug resistance, including artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) resistance, (iv) mandatory screening, (v) mass drug administration, (vi) benefits and risks of primaquine, and (vii) malaria in the context of blood donation and transfusion. Several ethical issues are also raised by past, present and future malaria research initiatives, in particular: (i) controlled infection studies, (ii) human landing catches, (iii) transmission-blocking vaccines, and (iv) genetically-modified mosquitoes. This article maps the terrain of these major ethical issues surrounding malaria control and elimination. Its objective is to motivate further research and discussion of ethical issues associated with malaria—and to assist health workers, researchers, and policy makers in pursuit of ethically sound malaria control practice and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the World Health Organization (WHO), disease surveillance, and public health ethics in relation to social well-being as of 2017. Patterns and causes of morbidity and mortality are addressed, along with access to safe food and clean air and water. The WHO's "Guidelines on Ethical Issues in Public Health Surveillance" publication is examined, along with the impact of public health surveillance on individuals' privacy rights and civil liberties.

Presents letters to the editor on various medical topics as of February 20, 2002. Safety of implantable cardiac devices; Question of whether patents prevent access to drugs for HIV in developing countries; Research as a quality improvement activity; Others.