Screening is not always healthy: an ethical analysis of health screening packages in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Health screening is undertaken to identify individuals who are deemed at higher risk of disease for further diagnostic testing so that they may possibly benefit from interventions to modify the natural course of disease. In Singapore, screening tests are widely available in the form of a package, which bundles multiple tests in one session and commonly includes non-recommended tests. There are various ethical issues associated with such testing as they may not be clinically appropriate and can result in more harm than benefit. This article describes the practice of health screening packages, identifies the ethical issues arising from such packages and discusses the implications of these ethical issues on policy and practice of screening in Singapore. METHODS: A content analysis of the websites of providers offering general health screening packages to individuals was conducted. A total of 14 health screening package providers were analysed for how packages were conducted and promoted, how clinically appropriate screening tests were, and the price range and composition of screening packages. A normative ethical analysis based on the four principles approach of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice in biomedical ethics was used. RESULTS: Twelve of the 14 providers included non-recommended tests such as tumour markers, treadmill stress tests and MRI scans in their general health screening packages. Package prices ranged from S$26 to S$10,561, with providers charging higher when more tests were included. Health screening packages were broadly conducted in three stages: (1) the offer and selection of a health screening package; (2) medical assessment and performance of screening tests; (3) a post-screening review. While material provided by all providers was factual, there was no information on the potential risks or harms of screening. CONCLUSION: Several ethical issues were identified that should be addressed with regard to health screening packages in Singapore. A key issue was the information gap between providers and patients, which may result in patients undergoing inappropriate testing that may be more harmful than beneficial. Health screening packages can stimulate unnecessary demand for healthcare and contribute to an inequitable distribution of healthcare resources.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Ethical medical repatriation of guest workers: Criteria and challenges.

Healthcare facilities in receiving countries regularly encounter guest workers whose need for acute or subacute care triggers the prospect of termination of employment and repatriation. In these scenarios, country-specific migration and employment policies and norms of medical professionalism and ethics offer some guidance, but also create tensions. It is not clear under what conditions such medical repatriation is ethically permissible. This paper analyses the application of a previously articulated criteria for the ethical medical repatriation of undocumented immigrants, to the situation of documented guest workers, with focus on the context of Singapore. We examine how these standards could be adapted and applied to the provision of care for guest workers, and argue that healthcare institutions and medical professionals have a duty to intervene in employers' decisions to repatriate guest workers for medico-economic reasons when repatriation essentially amounts to 'patient dumping'. Barriers and challenges in implementing the criteria, and their possible solutions will be discussed.

Stamping Out Animal Culling: From Anthropocentrism to One Health Ethics.

Culling is used in traditional public health policies to control animal populations. These policies aim primarily to protect human interests but often fail to provide scientific evidence of effectiveness. In this article, we defend the need to move from a strictly anthropocentric approach to disease control towards a One Health ethics, using culling practices as an example. We focus on the recent badger culls in the UK, claiming that, based on data provided by the English Government, these culls may be unjustified, all thing considered. We highlight the relevance of ethical reasoning rooted in One Health for this discussion, and make several suggestions including a moratorium on culling until data are provided to support the effectiveness of culling; to conduct a randomized trial to compare proactive culling with alternative methods; to apply deliberative democratic methods to assess public opinion towards the culls, and to find in Brexit an opportunity for aiming for more effective control measures.

Ethical Implementation of Immunity Passports During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

A number of countries are planning the use of "immunity passports" as a way to ease restrictive measures and allow infected and recovered people to return to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper brings together key scientific uncertainties regarding the use of serological tests to assure immune status and a public health ethics perspective to inform key considerations in the ethical implementation of immunity passport policies. Ill-conceived policies have the potential to cause severe unintended harms that could result in greater inequity, the stigmatization of certain sectors of society, and heightened risks and unequal treatment of individuals due to erroneous test results. Immunity passports could, however, be used to achieve collective benefits and benefits for specific populations besides facilitating economic recovery. We conclude that sector-based policies that prioritize access to testing based on societal need are likely to be fairer and logistically more feasible, while minimizing stigma and reducing incentives for fraud. Clear guidelines need to be set out for which sectors of society should be prioritized for testing, and rigorous mechanisms should be in place to validate test results and identify cases of reinfection.

Clarifying how to deploy the public interest criterion in consent waivers for health data and tissue research.

BACKGROUND: Several jurisdictions, including Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and most recently Ireland, have a public interest or public good criterion for granting waivers of consent in biomedical research using secondary health data or tissue. However, the concept of the public interest is not well defined in this context, which creates difficulties for institutions, institutional review boards (IRBs) and regulators trying to implement the criterion. MAIN TEXT: This paper clarifies how the public interest criterion can be defensibly deployed. We first explain the ethical basis for requiring waivers to only be granted to studies meeting the public interest criterion, then explore how further criteria may be set to determine the extent to which a given study can legitimately claim to be in the public interest. We propose an approach that does not attempt to measure magnitude of benefit directly, but rather takes into account metrics that are more straightforward to apply. To ensure consistent and justifiable interpretation, research institutions and IRBs should also incorporate procedural features such as transparency and public engagement in determining which studies satisfy the public interest requirement. CONCLUSION: The requirement of public interest for consent waivers in secondary biomedical research should be guided by well-defined criteria for systematic evaluation. Such a criteria and its application need to be periodically subject to intra-committee and intra-institution review, reflection, deliberation and amendment.

Altruism and reward: motivational compatibility in deceased organ donation.

Acts of helping others are often based on mixed motivations. Based on this claim, it has been argued that the use of a financial reward to incentivize organ donation is compatible with promoting altruism in organ donation. In its report Human Bodies: Donation for Medicine and Research, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics uses this argument to justify its suggestion to pilot a funeral payment scheme to incentivize people to register for deceased organ donation in the UK. In this article, I cast a sceptical eye on the above Nuffield report's argument that its proposed funeral payment scheme would prompt deceased organ donations that remain altruistic (as defined by and valued the report). Specifically, I illustrate how this scheme may prompt various forms of mixed motivations which would not satisfy the report's definition of altruism. Insofar as the scheme produces an expectation of the reward, it stands diametrical to promoting an 'altruistic perspective'. My minimal goal in this article is to argue that altruism is not motivationally compatible with reward as an incentive for donation. My broader goal is to argue that if a financial reward is used to incentivize organ donation, then we should recognize that the donation system is no longer aiming to promote altruism. Rewarded donation would not be altruistic but it may be ethical given a persistent organ shortage situation.

Organs as inheritable property?

It has been argued that organs should be treated as individual tradable property like other material possessions and assets, on the basis that this would promote individual freedom and increase efficiency in addressing the shortage of organs for transplantation. If organs are to be treated as property, should they be inheritable? This paper seeks to contribute to the idea of organs as inheritable property by providing a defence of a default of the family of a dead person as inheritors of transplantable organs. In the course of discussion, various succession rules for organs and their justifications will be suggested. We then consider two objections to organs as inheritable property. Our intention here is to provoke further thought on whether ownership of one's body parts should be assimilated to property ownership.

Adaptive, platform trials assessing therapies for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Informed consent forms omitted a few important elements of information.

Background: The information provided to participants of adaptive platform trials assessing therapies for COVID-19 inpatients is unknown. We aim to evaluate it by reviewing participant information sheets/informed consent forms (PIS/ICFs). Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 March 2022) to identify non-industry-sponsored adaptive platform phase 2+ trials with publicly available protocols and PIS/ICFs, selecting versions closest to the initial one. We assessed the elements of information included in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki as present, absent, or deficient (incompletely described). Results: We included PIS/ICFs of 11 trials (ACCORD-2, ACTIV-1IM, Bari-SolidAct, CATALYST, Discovery, HEAL-COVID, ITAC, RECOVERY, REMAP-COVID, Solidarity and TACTIC-R), which were 4-32 pages long (median (md) = 11). Between two and 11 (md = 6) of the 25 different elements of information assessed were omitted or deficiently described in the PIS/ICFs of the 11 trials. Information about providing trial results, investigators' conflicts of interest, post-study provisions, payment to and anticipated expenses for participants, number of participants, and on whether participants will receive new information that could impact their decision on staying in the trial, were omitted or deficiently described in at least five PIS/ICFs. Conclusions: Investigators failed to include a few important elements of information in the trial's PIS/ICF deemed relevant by international standards. In protocols of future trials, investigators should explain why elements of information specified in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and/or by the Declaration of Helsinki were omitted from the PIS/ICFs.

How WHO Solidarity Plus trial participants in countries on four continents are informed in writing.

Background: It is unknown if changes have been made to the original participant's information sheet/informed consent form (PIS/ICF) provided by the WHO Solidarity Plus team when it was transferred to participating countries. Methods: National principal investigators from 30 countries were asked if the original PIS/ICF was edited in their countries and, if so, to share with us the one used to recruit participants. We assessed whether the 25 different elements of information from the good clinical practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki were present in, deficiently described, or absent from the PIS/ICFs. Results: Nineteen national principal investigators responded: eight (Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iran, Lebanon, Lithuania, and Malaysia) stated that no edits were introduced to the original PIS/ICF; eight (Canada, Colombia, Philippines, India, Ireland, Pakistan, Portugal, and Switzerland) added some elements of information in the national PIS/ICF; and three (Italy, Peru, and Spain) reported not participating in the trial. None of the elements included in the original PIS/ICF were omitted from the edited PIS/IFC. Six elements of information were omitted and five deficiently described in the original PIS/ICF. The number of elements omitted from the edited PIS/ICFs varied (range = 2-5). Nine PIS/ICFs incompletely described or omitted the informing of study participants about the study results, while five deficiently described or omitted the anticipated expenses for trial participation. Information concerning whom to contact for more information or in case of injury was deficient in six PIS/ICFs. Unlike the original PIS/ICF, all edited PIS/ICFs informed participants about the existence of compensation or treatment for any injury related to the trial. Conclusions: WHO should consider adding three of the omitted elements in PIS/ICFs of future multinational similar trials.

Migration health ethics in Southeast Asia: a scoping review.

Background: Asia hosts the second-largest international migrant population in the world. In Southeast Asia (SEA), key types of migration are labour migration, forced migration, and environmental migration. This scoping review seeks to identify key themes and gaps in current research on the ethics of healthcare for mobile and marginalised populations in SEA, and the ethics of research involving these populations. Methods: We performed a scoping review using three broad concepts: population (stateless population, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced people), issues (healthcare and ethics), and context (11 countries in SEA). Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched from 2000 until May 2023 over a period of four months (February 2023 to May 2023). Other relevant publications were identified through citation searches, and six bioethics journals were hand searched. All searches were conducted in English, and relevant publications were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were subsequently imported into NVivo 14, and thematic analysis was conducted. Results: We identified 18 papers with substantial bioethical analysis. Ethical concepts that guide the analysis were 'capability, agency, dignity', 'vulnerability', 'precarity, complicity, and structural violence' (n=7). Ethical issues were discussed from the perspective of research ethics (n=9), clinical ethics (n=1) and public health ethics (n=1). All publications are from researchers based in Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia. Research gaps identified include the need for more research involving migrant children, research from migrant-sending countries, studies on quality of migrant healthcare, participatory health research, and research with internal migrants. Conclusions: More empirical research is necessary to better understand the ethical issues that exist in the domains of research, clinical care, and public health. Critical examination of the interplay between migration, health and ethics with consideration of the diverse factors and contexts involved is crucial for the advancement of migration health ethics in SEA.

COVID-19 vaccination certificates and lifting public health and social measures: ethical considerations.

Background: To reopen society, various countries are planning or have implemented differential public health and social measures (PHSMs) for COVID-19-vaccinated individuals, by exempting these individuals from some of the measures. Aims: To examine the ethical considerations raised by differential PHSMs by differrnt countries based on individual vaccination status verified by vaccination certificates. Discussion: Decisions on whether and when measures should be lifted specifically for vaccinated individuals should be guided by scientific and ethical considerations. These considerations include the public health risks of differential lifting, particularly in a context where a substantial portion of society is not vaccinated; mitigation of inequities and unfair disadvantages for unvaccinated individuals; and whether to permit other health certificates or credentials besides proof of vaccination as alternative options to access specific activities or services, as a way to balance public health and freedom of movement. Conclusion: Vaccination certificates may undermine a population-based approach to COVID-19 vaccination to achieve and accelerate universal lifting of PHSMs, result in unfair and inequitable health and social outcomes, and generate social divisions at a time when solidarity within (and between) countries is necessary to navigate the pandemic and its burdens. Further research on the ethical acceptability and impact of COVID-19 vaccine certificates in countries that have implemented them should be carried out to inform future ethical considerations on this issue.

Telemedicine and Haemodialysis Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Integrative Review of Patient Safety, Healthcare Quality, Ethics and the Legal Considerations in Singapore Practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented health crisis for the general population as well as for patients with chronic illnesses such as those requiring maintenance dialysis. Patients suffering from chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis are considered a high-risk population. Multiple reports have highlighted an increased need for intensive care and higher death rates among this group of patients. Most maintenance dialysis patients are in-centre haemodialysis patients who receive treatment in shared facilities (community dialysis centres). The inability to maintain social distancing in these facilities has led to case clustering among patients and staff. This poses a substantial risk to the patients, their household members, and the wider community. To mitigate the risks of COVID-19 transmission, telemedicine was rapidly adopted in the past year by nephrologists and other allied-health staff to provide care via remote consultations and reviews. Telemedicine poses unique challenges even in an era where so much is performed online with a high degree of success and satisfaction. In applying distant clinical care for maintenance haemodialysis patients via telemedicine, there is a need to ensure adequate protection for the health and safety of patients as well as understand the ethical and legal implications of telemedicine. We discussed, in this article, these three core aspects of patient safety and quality, ethics and legal implications in telemedicine, and how each of these is crucial to the safe and effective delivery of care in general as well as unique aspects of this in Singapore.

Professional Oversight of Emergency-Use Interventions and Monitoring Systems: Ethical Guidance From the Singapore Experience of COVID-19.

High degrees of uncertainty and a lack of effective therapeutic treatments have characterized the COVID-19 pandemic and the provision of drug products outside research settings has been controversial. International guidelines for providing patients with experimental interventions to treat infectious diseases outside of clinical trials exist but it is unclear if or how they should apply in settings where clinical trials and research are strongly regulated. We propose the Professional Oversight of Emergency-Use Interventions and Monitoring System (POEIMS) as an alternative pathway based on guidance developed for the ethical provision of experimental interventions to treat COVID-19 in Singapore. We support our proposal with justifications that establish moral duties for physicians to record outcomes data and for institutions to establish monitoring systems for reporting information on safety and effectiveness to the relevant authorities. Institutions also have a duty to support generation of evidence for what constitutes good clinical practice and so should ensure the unproven intervention is made the subject of research studies that can contribute to generalizable knowledge as soon as practical and that physicians remain committed to supporting learning health systems. We outline key differences between POEIMS and other pathways for the provision of experimental interventions in public health emergencies.

Public acceptability of COVID-19 control measures in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Several countries have implemented control measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 spread, including digital contact tracing, digital monitoring of quarantined individuals, and testing of travelers. These raise ethical issues around privacy, personal freedoms, and equity. However, little is known regarding public acceptability of these measures. METHODS: In December 2020, we conducted a survey among 3635 respondents in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia to understand public perceptions on the acceptability of COVID-19 control measures. FINDINGS: Hong Kong respondents were much less supportive of digital contact tracing and monitoring devices than those in Malaysia and Singapore. Around three-quarters of Hong Kong respondents perceived digital contact tracing as an unreasonable restriction of individual freedom; <20% trusted that there were adequate local provisions preventing these data being used for other purposes. This was the opposite in Singapore, where nearly 3/4 of respondents agreed that there were adequate data protection rules locally. In contrast, only a minority of Hong Kong respondents viewed mandatory testing and vaccination for travelers as unreasonable infringements of privacy or freedom. Less than 2/3 of respondents in all territories were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19, with a quarter of respondents undecided. However, support for differential travel restrictions for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals was high in all settings. INTERPRETATION: Our findings highlight the importance of sociopolitical context in public perception of public health measures and emphasize the need to continually monitor public attitudes toward such measures to inform implementation and communication strategies.

Uncertainty, scarcity and transparency: Public health ethics and risk communication in a pandemic.

Communicating public health guidance is key to mitigating risk during disasters and outbreaks, and ethical guidance on communication emphasizes being fully transparent. Yet, communication during the pandemic has sometimes been fraught, due in part to practical and conceptual challenges around being transparent. A particular challenge has arisen when there was both evolving scientific knowledge on COVID-19 and reticence to acknowledge that resource scarcity concerns were influencing public health recommendations. This essay uses the example of communicating public health guidance on masking in the United States to illustrate ethical challenges of developing and conveying public health guidance under twin conditions of uncertainty and resource scarcity. Such situations require balancing two key principles in public health ethics: the precautionary principle and harm reduction. Transparency remains a bedrock value to guide risk communication, but optimizing transparency requires consideration of additional ethical values in developing and implementing risk communication strategies.

Treating Workers as Essential Too: An Ethical Framework for Public Health Interventions to Prevent and Control COVID-19 Infections among Meat-processing Facility Workers and Their Communities in the United States.

Meat is a multi-billion-dollar industry that relies on people performing risky physical work inside meat-processing facilities over long shifts in close proximity. These workers are socially disempowered, and many are members of groups beset by historic and ongoing structural discrimination. The combination of working conditions and worker characteristics facilitate the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Workers have been expected to put their health and lives at risk during the pandemic because of government and industry pressures to keep this "essential industry" producing. Numerous interventions can significantly reduce the risks to workers and their communities; however, the industry's implementation has been sporadic and inconsistent. With a focus on the U.S. context, this paper offers an ethical framework for infection prevention and control recommendations grounded in public health values of health and safety, interdependence and solidarity, and health equity and justice, with particular attention to considerations of reciprocity, equitable burden sharing, harm reduction, and health promotion. Meat-processing workers are owed an approach that protects their health relative to the risks of harms to them, their families, and their communities. Sacrifices from businesses benefitting financially from essential industry status are ethically warranted and should acknowledge the risks assumed by workers in the context of existing structural inequities.

The social rationale of the gift relationship.

This paper argues that, for Richard Titmuss, the rationale of the gift relationship (TGR) as a national blood policy is to reconcile liberty with social justice in the provision of an essential health resource. Underpinned by a needs-based distributive principle, TGR provides a social space for a plurality of values in which to engage with and motivate people to voluntarily give blood and other body materials as a common good. This understanding of TGR as a value pluralistic framework and its implications will be used to discuss the issue of using economic mechanisms to increase the supply of body materials or goods, including organs for transplantation. It is argued that, while TGR excludes a policy in which body goods are treated as private commodities and distributed primarily on the basis of achieving market efficiency, it is not in principle opposed to the use of material rewards, including financial ones, to motivate people to donate.