Universal Access to Healthcare: The Case of South Africa in the Comparative Global Context of the Late Anthropocene Era.

Much current global debate - as well as a great deal of political rhetoric - about global health and healthcare is characterised by a renewed emphasis on the goal of universal access throughout the world. While this goal has been achieved to varying extents in the United Kingdom, Canada and many countries in Europe, even within those countries where national health systems have long been in place, the pervasive shift in emphasis from health as a social value to health as a commodity within a capitalist market civilization is eroding the commitment to equitable access to healthcare. Against this background the challenge is much greater in low- and middle-income countries that lag behind - especially if aspirations to universal access go beyond primary care. The challenges of achieving greater equity in access to health and in health outcomes, in a middle-income country like South Africa, illustrate the magnitude of the tensions and gaps that need to be traversed, given the vast differences between healthcare provided in the private and public sectors. Understandably the concept of National Health Insurance (NHI) in South Africa has widespread support. The strategies for how a successful and effective NHI could be implemented, over what time-frame and what it covers are, however, very controversial issues. What tends to be ignored is that sustainable improvement in health in South Africa, and elsewhere, is not determined merely by medical care but more especially by social structures intimately linked to deeply entrenched local and global social, economic and political forces and inequalities. While seldom openly addressed, some of these forces are explicated in this article to supplement views elsewhere, although most have elided emphasis on the pervasive effects of the global political economy on the provisioning and practising of health and healthcare everywhere on our planet.

Disconnections between medical education and medical practice: A neglected dilemma.

Medical practice has changed profoundly over the past 60 years. Many changes have also been made in medical education, often with a view to countering adverse aspects of highly specialised, commercialised and bureaucratised modern medical practice. Regardless of the state of the world today and of the variety of changes that may occur in the years ahead, excellence in the application of bedside skills and technological advances, accompanied by excellence in humanistic aspects of caring for patients as people, will remain preeminent goals at the heart of medical practice. Powerful social forces that negatively influence practice cannot be counteracted through changes in medical education alone and need to be addressed directly within health systems. Shifting healthcare towards a valued social service is arguably essential for improving both public and individual health through more widespread universal access to high quality and effectively integrated health care.

Global health ethics: critical reflections on the contours of an emerging field, 1977-2015.

BACKGROUND: The field of bioethics has evolved over the past half-century, incorporating new domains of inquiry that signal developments in health research, clinical practice, public health in its broadest sense and more recently sensitivity to the interdependence of global health and the environment. These extensions of the reach of bioethics are a welcome response to the growth of global health as a field of vital interest and activity. METHODS: This paper provides a critical interpretive review of how the term "global health ethics" has been used and defined in the literature to date to identify ethical issues that arise and need to be addressed when deliberating on and working to improve the discourse on ethical issues in health globally. RESULTS: Selected publications were analyzed by year of publication and geographical distribution, journal and field, level of engagement, and ethical framework. Of the literature selected, 151 articles (88%) were written by authors in high-income countries (HIC), as defined by the World Bank country classifications, 8 articles (5%) were written by authors in low- or middle-income countries (LMIC), and 13 articles (7%) were collaborations between authors in HIC and LMIC. All of the articles selected except one from 1977 were published after 1998. Literature on global health ethics spiked considerably from the early 2000s, with the highest number in 2011. One hundred twenty-seven articles identified were published in academic journals, 1 document was an official training document, and 44 were chapters in published books. The dominant journals were the American Journal of Bioethics (n = 10), Developing World Bioethics (n = 9), and Bioethics (n = 7). We coded the articles by level of engagement within the ethical domain at different levels: (1) interpersonal, (2) institutional, (3) international, and (4) structural. The ethical frameworks at use corresponded to four functional categories: those examining practical or narrowly applied ethical questions; those concerned with normative ethics; those examining an issue through a single philosophical tradition; and those comparing and contrasting insights from multiple ethical frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: This critical interpretive review is intended to delineate the current contours and revitalize the conversation around the future charge of global health ethics scholarship.

Dynamic Tensions Following New Pedagogy in Undergraduate Medical Education.

The authors draw on their many decades of combined experience with medical students, observing their maturation into practice in widely differing contexts, to reaffirm some of the essential goals of medical education. They briefly review curricular changes in medical education over the past 100 years, then focus on the dynamic tension in undergraduate medical education (UME) resulting from new pedagogy. Specifically, these tensions arise from the differing trajectories and directions of the 3 traditional pillars of academic medicine: clinical excellence, state-of-the-art education, and cutting-edge research. The authors highlight the role of generalism as an essential foundation of UME, as well as the dilemma of a shrinking cadre of medical students choosing a generalist career path. To address challenges stemming from pedagogical changes, the authors offer 4 observations. First, a more condensed approach to faculty development may be to ensure that bringing teachers up to speed on the new curriculum is not excessively burdensome. Second would be a more gradual introduction of the proposed changes. Third, some discussion about medical education pedagogy and curricular development ought to have a place in UME to prepare the next generation of physicians for ongoing changes in accreditation and in approaches to education. Finally, more appropriate funding of medical education would alleviate some of the burden and anxiety by acknowledging its nonmaterial value.

Why equity in health and in access to health care are elusive: Insights from Canada and South Africa.

Health and access to health care vary strikingly across the globe, and debates about this have been pervasive and controversial. Some comparative data in Canada and South Africa illustrate the complexity of achieving greater equity anywhere, even in a wealthy country like Canada. Potential bi-directional lessons relevant both to local and global public health are identified. Both countries should consider the implications of lost opportunity costs associated with lack of explicit resource allocation policies. While National Health Insurance is attractive politically, Canada's example cannot be fully emulated in South Africa. Short- and medium-term attempts to improve equity in middle-income countries should focus on equitable access to insurance to cover primary health care and on making more use of nurse practitioners and community health workers. In the longer-term, attention is needed to the economic and political power structures that influence health and health care and that ignore the social and societal determinants of sustainable good health locally and globally. This long-term vision of health is needed globally to achieve improvements in individual and population health in a century characterised by limits to economic growth, widening disparities, continuing conflict and migration on a large scale and multiple adverse impacts of climate change.

History, Structure and Agency in Global Health Governance Comment on "Global Health Governance Challenges 2016 - Are We Ready?"

Ilona Kickbusch's thought provoking editorial is criticized in this commentary, partly because she fails to refer to previous critical work on the global conditions and policies that sustain inequality, poverty, poor health and damage to the biosphere and, as a result, she misreads global power and elides consideration of the fundamental historical structures of political and material power that shape agency in global health governance. We also doubt that global health can be improved through structures and processes of multilateralism that are premised on the continued reproduction of the ecologically myopic and socially unsustainable market civilization model of capitalist development that currently prevails in the world economy. This model drives net financial flows from poor to rich countries and from the poor to the affluent and super wealthy individuals. By contrast, we suggest that significant progress in global health requires a profound and socially just restructuring of global power, greater global solidarity and the "development of sustainability."

Correction: Use of the 'Accountability for Reasonableness' Approach to Improve Fairness in Accessing Dialysis in a Middle-Income Country.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164201.].

Inter-Philosophies Dialogue: Creating a Paradigm for Global Health Ethics.

While debate remains about the definition and goals of work on global health, there is growing agreement that our moral starting point is the reality of unjust inequalities in the distribution of the conditions necessary for human health and well-being. With the growth of multi-jurisdictional and multicultural global health partnerships, the adequacy of the prevailing bioethical paradigm guiding the conduct of global health research and practice is being increasingly challenged. In response to ethical challenges and conflicts confronted by decision-makers in global health research and practice, we propose an innovative methodology that could be developed to bridge the gap between polarized systems of ideas and values (metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and political). Our inter-philosophies methodology provides the potential to construct a new, shared paradigm for global health ethics, thereby increasing the capacity for solidarity and shared decision-making in global health research and practice.

Politics, Power, Poverty and Global Health: Systems and Frames.

Striking disparities in access to healthcare and in health outcomes are major characteristics of health across the globe. This inequitable state of global health and how it could be improved has become a highly popularized field of academic study. In a series of articles in this journal the roles of power and politics in global health have been addressed in considerable detail. Three points are added here to this debate. The first is consideration of how the use of definitions and common terms, for example 'poverty eradication,' can mask full exposure of the extent of rectification required, with consequent failure to understand what poverty eradication should mean, how this could be achieved and that a new definition is called for. Secondly, a criticism is offered of how the term 'global health' is used in a restricted manner to describe activities that focus on an anthropocentric and biomedical conception of health across the world. It is proposed that the discourse on 'global health' should be extended beyond conventional boundaries towards an ecocentric conception of global/planetary health in an increasingly interdependent planet characterised by a multitude of interlinked crises. Finally, it is noted that the paucity of workable strategies towards achieving greater equity in sustainable global health is not so much due to lack of understanding of, or insight into, the invisible dimensions of power, but is rather the outcome of seeking solutions from within belief systems and cognitive biases that cannot offer solutions. Hence the need for a new framing perspective for global health that could reshape our thinking and actions.

Use of the 'Accountability for Reasonableness' Approach to Improve Fairness in Accessing Dialysis in a Middle-Income Country.

Universal access to renal replacement therapy is beyond the economic capability of most low and middle-income countries due to large patient numbers and the high recurrent cost of treating end stage kidney disease. In countries where limited access is available, no systems exist that allow for optimal use of the scarce dialysis facilities. We previously reported that using national guidelines to select patients for renal replacement therapy resulted in biased allocation. We reengineered selection guidelines using the 'Accountability for Reasonableness' (procedural fairness) framework in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, applying these in a novel way to categorize and prioritize patients in a unique hierarchical fashion. The guidelines were primarily premised on patients being transplantable. We examined whether the revised guidelines enhanced fairness of dialysis resource allocation. This is a descriptive study of 1101 end stage kidney failure patients presenting to a tertiary renal unit in a middle-income country, evaluated for dialysis treatment over a seven-year period. The Assessment Committee used the accountability for reasonableness-based guidelines to allocate patients to one of three assessment groups. Category 1 patients were guaranteed renal replacement therapy, Category 3 patients were palliated, and Category 2 were offered treatment if resources allowed. Only 25.2% of all end stage kidney disease patients assessed were accepted for renal replacement treatment. The majority of patients (48%) were allocated to Category 2. Of 134 Category 1 patients, 98% were accepted for treatment while 438 (99.5%) Category 3 patients were excluded. Compared with those palliated, patients accepted for dialysis treatment were almost 10 years younger, employed, married with children and not diabetic. Compared with our previous selection process our current method of priority setting based on procedural fairness arguably resulted in more equitable allocation of treatment but, more importantly, it is a model that is morally, legally and ethically more defensible.

Where Caring Is Sharing: Evolving Ethical Considerations in Tuberculosis Prevention Among Healthcare Workers.

In many settings, the dedication of healthcare workers (HCWs) to the treatment of tuberculosis exposes them to serious risks. Current ethical considerations related to tuberculosis prevention in HCWs involve the threat posed by comorbidities, issues of power and space, the implications of intersectoral collaborations, (de)professionalization, just remuneration, the duty to care, and involvement in research. Emerging ethical considerations include mandatory vaccination and the use of geolocalization services and information technologies. The following exploration of these various ethical considerations demonstrates that the language of ethics can fruitfully be deployed to shed new light on policies that have repercussions on the lives of HCWs in underresourced settings. The language of ethics can help responsible parties get a clearer sense of what they owe HCWs, particularly when these individuals are poorly compensated, and it shows that it is essential that HCWs' contribution be acknowledged through a shared commitment to alleviate ethically problematic aspects of the environments within which they provide care. For this reason, there is a strong case for the community of bioethicists to continue to take greater interest both in the micro-level (eg, patient-provider interactions) and macro-level (eg, injustices that occur as a result of the world order) issues that put HCWs working in areas with high tuberculosis prevalence in ethically untenable positions. Ultimately, appropriate responses to the various ethical considerations explored here must vary based on the setting, but, as this article shows, they require thoughtful reflection and courageous action on the part of governments, policy makers, and managers responsible for national responses to the tuberculosis epidemic.

Global Health Governance and Global Power: A Critical Commentary on the Lancet-University of Oslo Commission Report.

The Lancet-University of Oslo Commission Report on Global Governance for Health provides an insightful analysis of the global health inequalities that result from transnational activities consequent on what the authors call contemporary "global social norms." Our critique is that the analysis and suggested reforms to prevailing institutions and practices are confined within the perspective of the dominant-although unsustainable and inequitable-market-oriented, neoliberal development model of global capitalism. Consequently, the report both elides critical discussion of many key forms of material and political power under conditions of neoliberal development and governance that shape the nature and priorities of the global governance for health, and fails to point to the extent of changes required to sustainably improve global health. We propose that an alternative concept of progress-one grounded in history, political economy, and ecologically responsible health ethics-is sorely needed to better address challenges of global health governance in the new millennium. This might be premised on global solidarity and the "development of sustainability." We argue that the prevailing market civilization model that lies at the heart of global capitalism is being, and will further need to be, contested to avoid contradictions and dislocations associated with the commodification and privatization of health.

Lessons for Health From Insights into Environmental Crises.

The health of whole populations within nations and globally and the implications of climate change are two of the most important challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. Both are components of a complex global crisis that must be acknowledged and addressed. Here we draw the attention of health professionals to some emerging threats and insights from key works of environmentalists in the hope that these may catalyze reflection on the broader challenges facing human health at a time of deep planetary malaise.

Explaining and responding to the Ebola epidemic.

The Ebola epidemic in West Africa is not merely a biomedical problem that can be seen in isolation and dealt with only through emergency medical rescue processes. The ethical dilemmas surfaced by this epidemic are also not confined to the usual micro-ethical problems associated with medical care and medical research. The pandemic, as one of many manifestations of failed human and social development that has brought the world to dangerous 'tipping points', requires deep introspection and action to address upstream causal processes.