RESUMO
This article argues that environmental considerations fall within the scope of medical bioethics, and there are implications specific to medical education. It endorses the need to expand the scope and epistemology of contemporary medical bioethics discourse by including themes related to environmental considerations. Our discussion begins by providing a brief history of environmental bioethics. It then offers a critique of three specific health and environmental issues, namely technology, toxics, and consumption, and discusses how these issues are key to articulating moral considerations of human health and subsequently medicine and its teaching. Lastly, it explores criticisms of including environmental issues into the bioethical debate before providing suggestions of how environmental ethics can be included into the medical curriculum. This article concludes by suggesting theoretical possibilities for environmentally inclusive bioethics, such as reorienting bioethical discussions to its original environmental advocacy and supporting environmental bioethics as a competency in medical education.
Assuntos
Bioética , Medicina , Humanos , Bioética/educação , Currículo , Princípios Morais , Temas BioéticosRESUMO
Dubbed the "inequality virus", coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has unveiled and magnified many of the global society's long-standing inequalities and health inequities. This work brings together the phenomena of increased inequality and health inequities felt by the poor and young working class of the Philippines and how they interact negatively with existing vaccine policies. The poor and the young were more likely to have experienced employment disruptions with limited access to technologies that allowed for teleworking. Informal economy workers suffered from diminished labor protection and draconian lockdowns. Disadvantaged areas persistently dealt with limited health resources, and the working class was disproportionately vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. Utilitarian vaccine policies such as mandatory vaccination and the prioritization scheme negatively interacted with these COVID-induced inequalities and health inequities. While the young working class was more likely to be unemployed, mandatory vaccine policy required that they get vaccinated before seeking re-employment. However, the prioritization scheme adopted by the government failed to target them as a priority. This left them in a vulnerable state of prolonged unemployment while on standby for better supply and improved infrastructure for vaccine rollout. Future prospects in terms of economic recovery and health equity will be affected by issues such as potential increased taxation, the rapidly digitalizing labor market that is evolving to favor highly-skilled workers, and the staging of universal healthcare in the country.