The Need for Historical Fluency in Pandemic Law and Policy.

The primary claim of this essay is that historical fluency is required for effective work in crafting legal and policy interventions as a part of public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR). At a broad level, public health law is explicitly recognized as a key systems-level component of PHEPR practice.1 This essay therefore focuses on the extent to which historical fluency is necessary or at least useful to all aspects of PHEPR that draw on or deploy legal and policy mechanisms (e.g., design, planning, implementation, dissemination, monitoring and evaluation, etc.). The essay collectively refers to these legal and policy mechanisms as epidemic law and policy response (ELAPR). Part I explains the concept of historical fluency. Part II explores the foundations of public health law both as a way of highlighting key structural features of ELAPR and in supporting the claim that historical fluency is critical for ELAPR. Part III applies the previous arguments to a specific case study to highlight the promise and power of historical fluency - the outbreak of bubonic plague in San Francisco in 1900. Tracking this essay's pragmatic focus, part IV offers several recommendations for how specifically historical fluency in public health law and ethics can be operationalized in PHEPR practice and policy. Part V summarizes and concludes.

The Perils of Medicalization for Population Health and Health Equity.

Policy Points Medicalization is a historical process by which personal, behavioral, and social issues are increasingly viewed through a biomedical lens and "diagnosed and treated" as individual pathologies and problems by medical authorities. Medicalization in the United States has led to a conflation of "health" and "health care" and a confusion between individual social needs versus the social, political, and economic determinants of health. The essential and important work of population health science, public health practice, and health policy writ large is being thwarted by a medicalized view of health and an overemphasis on personal health services and the health care delivery system as the major focal point for addressing societal health issues and health inequality. Increased recognition of the negative consequences of a medicalized view of health is essential, with a focus on education and training of clinicians and health care managers, journalists, and policymakers.

Bioethics, (Funding) Priorities, and the Perpetuation of Injustice.

If funding allocation is an indicator of a field's priorities, then the priorities of the field of bioethics are misaligned because they perpetuate injustice. Social justice mandates priority for the factors that drive systematic disadvantage, which tend not to be the areas supported by funding within academic bioethics. Current funding priorities violate social justice by overemphasizing technologies that aim to enhance the human condition without addressing underlying structural inequalities grounded in racism, and by deemphasizing areas of inquiry most frequently pursued by Scholars of Color. This lack of attention to upstream determinants of health in bioethics research perpetuates a gap in the resources needed to understand the experiences of communities disproportionately experiencing poor health, which is itself a form of epistemic injustice. Both social and epistemic injustices are apparent in the impact of these funding priorities on people of color, both in the public and in the bioethics community.

Duties When an Anonymous Student Health Survey Finds a Hot Spot of Suicidality.

Public health agencies regularly survey randomly selected anonymous students to track drug use, sexual activities, and other risk behaviors. Students are unidentifiable, but a recent project that included school-level analysis discovered a school with alarmingly prevalent student suicidality. Given confidentiality protocols typical of surveillance, the surveyors were uncertain whether and how to intervene. We searched literature for duties to warn at-risk groups discovered during public health surveillance, but we found no directly applicable guidance or cases. Reasoning by analogy, we conclude that surveyors should contact the school's leaders to call attention to its outlier status, but public warning is unwarranted. However, such an ad hoc decision to issue a warning, even if only to school leaders, raises significant practical, legal and ethical issues. National public health and education associations should produce guidance that clarifies ethical and legal duties owed to schools and students involved in population health-risk surveillance.

Advancing shared decision making for symptom monitoring in people living beyond cancer.

Wellbeing after successful cancer treatment depends on more than merely reducing the risk of disease recurrence. Cancer survival can be characterised by uncertainty, fear, and the interpretation of bodily sensations as potentially symptomatic of cancer recurrence. This fear can lead to over-vigilance about bodily sensations and precautionary visits to the doctor, both of which can increase the chance of early detection but can also increase anxiety and decrease quality of life. In this Personal View, we consider the medical, psychological, and ethical issues related to the practice of self-directed symptom monitoring after completion of cancer treatment, focusing on the role of doctor-patient communication. We ask how clinicians can account for the plurality of values that patients might have when it comes to deciding on how to manage and respond to experiences of post-cancer symptoms. We advocate a shared decision-making approach that incorporates the assessment of an individual's cancer recurrence risks as well as psychosocial considerations regarding fear of cancer recurrence and mental health. We aim to raise awareness of the potential quality-of-life implications of symptom-monitoring practices, emphasising the need for a balance between physical and psychological health in people living beyond cancer.

Pain, objectivity and history: understanding pain stigma.

The primary claim of this paper is that understanding the stigma so commonly endured by chronic pain sufferers today in the USA and the UK is unlikely without proper appreciation of the history of pain. Ameliorating such stigma is an ethical imperative, and yet most approaches eschew even an attempt to trace connections between historical attitudes, practices and beliefs towards pain and the stigmatisation so many pain sufferers currently endure. The manuscript aims to help fill this gap by framing pain in the modern era in context of two crucial intellectual schemes that waxed in the 19th and 20th centuries: mechanical objectivity and somaticism. The analysis explains these frameworks and applies them to exploration of primary sources connected to contested pain conditions such as railway spine. By properly situating the historical roots of what it means to cite the 'subjectivity' of pain as a problem, the modern roots of stigmatising attitudes and practices towards chronic pain sufferers become much clearer. The manuscript concludes by suggesting that interventions expressly intended to target the root causes of such stigma are much more likely to be successful than approaches that proceed in ignorance of the historical forces shaping and driving pain stigma in the present.

A Legal and Ethical Analysis of the Effects of Triggering Conditions on Surrogate Decision-Making in End-of-Life Care in the US.

The central claim of this paper is that American states' use of so-called "triggering conditions" to regulate surrogate decision-making authority in end-of-life care leaves unresolved a number of important ethical and legal considerations regarding the scope of that authority. The paper frames the issue with a case set in a jurisdiction in which surrogate authority to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is triggered by two specific clinical conditions. The case presents a quandary insofar as the clinical facts do not satisfy the triggering conditions, and yet both the appropriate surrogates and the care team agree that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is in the best interest of the patient. The paper surveys applicable law across the 50 states and weighs the arguments for and against the inclusion of such triggering conditions in relevant legal regimes. The paper concludes by assessing the various legal and policy options states have for regulating surrogate decision-making authority in light of the moral considerations (including epistemic difficulties), and notes the possibility for conflict within ethics teams arising from the potential tension between prudence, risk-aversion, and moral obligation.

The implications of fundamental cause theory for priority setting.

Application of fundamental cause theory to Powers and Faden's model of social justice highlights the ethical superiority of upstream public health interventions. In this article, I assess the ramifications of fundamental cause theory specifically in context of public health priority setting. Ethically optimal public health policy simultaneously maximizes overall population health and compresses health inequalities. The fundamental cause theory is an important framework in helping to identify which categories of public health interventions are most likely to advance these twin goals.

Big pharma and the problem of disease inflation.

Over the course of the past decade, critics have increasingly called attention to the corrosive influence of the pharmaceutical industry on both biomedical research and the practice of medicine. Critics describe the industry's use of ghostwriting and other unethical techniques to expand their markets as evidence that medical science is all-too-frequently subordinated to the goals of corporate profit. While we do not dispute this perspective, we argue that it is imperative to also recognize that the goals of medical science and industry profit are now tightly wed to one another. As a result, medical science now operates to expand disease definitions, lower diagnostic thresholds, and otherwise advance the goals of corporate profit through the redefinition and expansion of what it means to be ill. We suggest that this process has led to a variety of ethical problems that are not fully captured by current critiques of ghostwriting and other troubling practices by the pharmaceutical industry. In our conclusion, we call for physicians, ethicists, and other concerned observers to embrace a more fundamental critique of the relationship between biomedical science and corporate profit.

Integrating Public Health Ethics into Public Health Policymaking: Being in the Room Where It Happens.

This commentary takes up a challenge posed by Franklin Miller in a 2022 essay in Bioethics Forum. Dr. Miller queried whether bioethicists could be useful in public health policy contexts and while he refrained from issuing an ultimate opinion, did identify several challenges to such utility. The current piece responds to the challenges Dr. Miller identifies and argues that with appropriate training, public health ethicists can be of service in virtually any context in which public health policies are deliberated and decided.

Against the very idea of the politicization of public health policy.

I criticize the concern over the politicization of public health policy as a justification for preferring a narrow to a broad model of public health. My critique proceeds along 2 lines. First, the fact that administrative structures and actors are primary sources of public health policy demonstrates its inescapably political and politicized nature. Second, historical evidence shows that public health in Great Britain and the United States has from its very inception been political and politicized. I conclude by noting legitimate ethical concerns regarding the political nature of public health policy and argue that open deliberation in a democratic social order is best served by acknowledging the constraints of the inescapably politicized process of public health policymaking.

On Ideas as Actors: How Ideas about Yellow Fever Causality Shaped Public Health Policy Responses in 19th-Century Galveston.

This article uses debates regarding yellow fever causality among leading healers in 19th-century Galveston, Texas, U.S., as a means of exploring the extent to which ideas are social actors. That is, the analysis demonstrates that ideas about yellow fever causality shaped contemporaneous public health policy responses to yellow fever outbreaks in 19th-century Galveston. The article contributes to the growing literature documenting that contagionist and anticontagionist views were often assimilated, and also supports the historiography showing that the predisposing/exciting causes dichotomy is a more robust intellectual framework for understanding 19th-century attributions of disease causality.

Pain as a global public health priority.

BACKGROUND: Pain is an enormous problem globally. Estimates suggest that 20% of adults suffer from pain globally and 10% are newly diagnosed with chronic pain each year. Nevertheless, the problem of pain has primarily been regarded as a medical problem, and has been little addressed by the field of public health. DISCUSSION: Despite the ubiquity of pain, whether acute, chronic or intermittent, public health scholars and practitioners have not addressed this issue as a public health problem. The importance of viewing pain through a public health lens allows one to understand pain as a multifaceted, interdisciplinary problem for which many of the causes are the social determinants of health. Addressing pain as a global public health issue will also aid in priority setting and formulating public health policy to address this problem, which, like most other chronic non-communicable diseases, is growing both in absolute numbers and in its inequitable distribution across the globe. SUMMARY: The prevalence, incidence, and vast social and health consequences of global pain requires that the public health community give due attention to this issue. Doing so will mean that health care providers and public health professionals will have a more comprehensive understanding of pain and the appropriate public health and social policy responses to this problem.