Conscientious refusal or conscientious provision: We can't have both.

Some authors argue that it is permissible for clinicians to conscientiously provide abortion services because clinicians are already allowed to conscientiously refuse to provide certain services. Call this the symmetry thesis. We argue that on either of the two main understandings of the aim of the medical profession-what we will call "pathocentric" and "interest-centric" views-conscientious refusal and conscientious provision are mutually exclusive. On pathocentric views, refusing to provide a service that takes away from a patient's health is professionally justified because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to refuse to provide that service (e.g., it does not heal, and it is contrary to the goals of medicine). However, providing that same service is not professionally justified when providing that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. Likewise, the thesis turns out false on interest-centric views. Refusing to provide a service is not professionally justified when that service helps the patient fulfill her autonomous preferences because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to provide that service (e.g., it helps her achieve her autonomous preferences, and it would be contrary to the goals of medicine to deny her that service). However, refusing to provide that same service is not professionally justified when refusing to provide that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. As a result, on either of the two most plausible views on the goals of medicine, the symmetry thesis turns out false.

Ethics of artificial intelligence in medicine.

ABSTRACT: This article reviews the main ethical issues that arise from the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in medicine. Issues around trust, responsibility, risks of discrimination, privacy, autonomy, and potential benefits and harms are assessed. For better or worse, AI is a promising technology that can revolutionise healthcare delivery. It is up to us to make AI a tool for the good by ensuring that ethical oversight accompanies the design, development and implementation of AI technology in clinical practice.

Reelin' In The Years: Age and Selective Restriction of Liberty in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, focused protection strategies including selective lockdowns of the elderly were proposed as alternatives to general lockdowns. These selective restrictions would consist of isolating only those most at risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and subsequent use of healthcare resources. The proposal seems to have troubling implications, including the permissibility of selective lockdown on the basis of characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, disability, or BMI. Like age, these factors also correlated with an increased risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. In this paper, we argue that age has meaningful differences as a morally relevant characteristic in the justification for selective restrictions of liberty. Thus, it might justify selective freedom restrictions in a way in which other factors might not. We offer four moral domains that separate age from other proxies: empiricism, operationality, discrimination, and disparity.

3D-Printed Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate)-Cellulose-Based Scaffolds for Biomedical Applications.

While biomaterials have become indispensable for a wide range of tissue repair strategies, second removal procedures oftentimes needed in the case of non-bio-based and non-bioresorbable scaffolds are associated with significant drawbacks not only for the patient, including the risk of infection, impaired healing, or tissue damage, but also for the healthcare system in terms of cost and resources. New biopolymers are increasingly being investigated in the field of tissue regeneration, but their widespread use is still hampered by limitations regarding mechanical, biological, and functional performance when compared to traditional materials. Therefore, a common strategy to tune and broaden the final properties of biopolymers is through the effect of different reinforcing agents. This research work focused on the fabrication and characterization of a bio-based and bioresorbable composite material obtained by compounding a poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) (PHBH) matrix with acetylated cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs). The developed biocomposite was further processed to obtain three-dimensional scaffolds by additive manufacturing (AM). The 3D printability of the PHBH-CNC biocomposites was demonstrated by realizing different scaffold geometries, and the results of in vitro cell viability studies provided a clear indication of the cytocompatibility of the biocomposites. Moreover, the CNC content proved to be an important parameter in tuning the different functional properties of the scaffolds. It was demonstrated that the water affinity, surface roughness, and in vitro degradability rate of biocomposites increase with increasing CNC content. Therefore, this tailoring effect of CNC can expand the potential field of use of the PHBH biopolymer, making it an attractive candidate for a variety of tissue engineering applications.

Freedom, diseases, and public health restrictions.

The debate around lockdowns as a response to the recent pandemic is typically framed in terms of a tension between freedom and health. However, on some views, protection of health or reduction of virus-related risks can also contribute to freedom. Therefore, there might be no tension between freedom and health in public health restrictions. I argue that such views fail to appreciate the different understandings of freedom that are involved in the trade-off between freedom and health. Grasping these distinctions would allow to appreciate why different people give more weight to different aspects of limitations of freedom, including whether certain options are made simply risky or impossible, whether limitations of freedom are posed intentionally or happen accidentally, whether risks are beyond a threshold of acceptability, and who gets to decide that. I provide a conceptual analysis of the relationship between different types of freedom, public health policies, viruses and diseases. As I argue, identifying what freedom-based reasons count for and against different types of public health restrictions requires distinguishing between viruses and diseases, between lockdowns and other types of restrictive policies, and between risks posed by viruses and threats of penalties involved by restrictive policies.

Conscientious commitment, professional obligations and abortion provision after the reversal of Roe v Wade.

We argue that, in certain circumstances, doctors might be professionally justified to provide abortions even in those jurisdictions where abortion is illegal. That it is at least professionally permissible does not mean that they have an all-things-considered ethical justification or obligation to provide illegal abortions or that professional obligations or professional permissibility trump legal obligations. It rather means that professional organisations should respect and indeed protect doctors' positive claims of conscience to provide abortions if they plausibly track what is in the best medical interests of their patients. It is the responsibility of state authorities to enforce the law, but it is the responsibility of professional organisations to uphold the highest standards of medical ethics, even when they conflict with the law. Whatever the legal sanctions in place, healthcare professionals should not be sanctioned by the professional bodies for providing abortions according to professional standards, even if illegally. Indeed, professional organisation should lobby to offer protection to such professionals. Our arguments have practical implications for what healthcare professionals and healthcare professional organisations may or should do in those jurisdictions that legally prohibit abortion, such as some US States after the reversal of Roe v Wade.

Exploring Models for an International Legal Agreement on the Global Antimicrobial Commons: Lessons from Climate Agreements.

An international legal agreement governing the global antimicrobial commons would represent the strongest commitment mechanism for achieving collective action on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Since AMR has important similarities to climate change-both are common pool resource challenges that require massive, long-term political commitments-the first article in this special issue draws lessons from various climate agreements that could be applicable for developing a grand bargain on AMR. We consider the similarities and differences between the Paris Climate Agreement and current governance structures for AMR, and identify the merits and challenges associated with different international forums for developing a long-term international agreement on AMR. To be effective, fair, and feasible, an enduring legal agreement on AMR will require a combination of universal, differentiated, and individualized requirements, nationally determined contributions that are regularly reviewed and ratcheted up in level of ambition, a regular independent scientific stocktake to support evidence informed policymaking, and a concrete global goal to rally support.

Governing the Global Antimicrobial Commons: Introduction to Special Issue.

Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest public health crises of our time. The natural biological process that causes microbes to become resistant to antimicrobial drugs presents a complex social challenge requiring more effective and sustainable management of the global antimicrobial commons-the common pool of effective antimicrobials. This special issue of Health Care Analysis explores the potential of two legal approaches-one long-term and one short-term-for managing the antimicrobial commons. The first article explores the lessons for antimicrobial resistance that can be learned from recent climate change agreements, and the second article explores how existing international laws can be adapted to better support global action in the short-term.

Making Use of Existing International Legal Mechanisms to Manage the Global Antimicrobial Commons: Identifying Legal Hooks and Institutional Mandates.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent threat to global public health and development. Mitigating this threat requires substantial short-term action on key AMR priorities. While international legal agreements are the strongest mechanism for ensuring collaboration among countries, negotiating new international agreements can be a slow process. In the second article in this special issue, we consider whether harnessing existing international legal agreements offers an opportunity to increase collective action on AMR goals in the short-term. We highlight ten AMR priorities and several strategies for achieving these goals using existing "legal hooks" that draw on elements of international environmental, trade and health laws governing related matters that could be used as they exist or revised to include AMR. We also consider the institutional mandates of international authorities to highlight areas where additional steps could be taken on AMR without constitutional changes. Overall, we identify 37 possible mechanisms to strengthen AMR governance using the International Health Regulations, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, and the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions. Although we identify many shorter-term opportunities for addressing AMR using existing legal hooks, none of these options are capable of comprehensively addressing all global governance challenges related to AMR, such that they should be pursued simultaneously with longer-term approaches including a dedicated international legal agreement on AMR.

Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers beyond COVID-19.

We provide ethical criteria to establish when vaccine mandates for healthcare workers are ethically justifiable. The relevant criteria are the utility of the vaccine for healthcare workers, the utility for patients (both in terms of prevention of transmission of infection and reduction in staff shortage), and the existence of less restrictive alternatives that can achieve comparable benefits. Healthcare workers have professional obligations to promote the interests of patients that entail exposure to greater risks or infringement of autonomy than ordinary members of the public. Thus, we argue that when vaccine mandates are justified on the basis of these criteria, they are not unfairly discriminatory and the level of coercion they involve is ethically acceptable-and indeed comparable to that already accepted in healthcare employment contracts. Such mandates might be justified even when general population mandates are not. Our conclusion is that, given current evidence, those ethical criteria justify mandates for influenza vaccination, but not COVID-19 vaccination, for healthcare workers. We extend our arguments to other vaccines.

Characterization of 3D Printed Polylactic Acid by Fused Granular Fabrication through Printing Accuracy, Porosity, Thermal and Mechanical Analyses.

Fused Granular Fabrication (FGF) or screw-extrusion based 3D printing for polymers is a less diffused alternative to filament-based Additive Manufacturing (AM). Its greatest advantage lies in superior sustainability; in fact, polymer granules can be used to directly feed an FGF printer, reducing the time, cost and energy of producing a part. Moreover, with this technology, a circular economy approach involving the use of pellets made from plastic waste can be easily implemented. Polylactic Acid (PLA) pellets were processed at different printing speeds and with different infill percentages on a customized version of a commercial Prusa i3 Plus 3D printer modified with a Mahor screw extruder. For the characterization of the 3D printed samples, rheological, thermal, mechanical and porosity analyses were carried out. In addition, the energy consumption of the 3D printer was monitored during the production of the specimens. The results showed that a higher printing speed leads to lower energy consumption, without compromising material strength, whereas a slower printing speed is preferable to increase material stiffness.

Characterization of biocompatible scaffolds manufactured by fused filament fabrication of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate).

We characterize poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) (PHBH) scaffolds for tissue repair and regeneration, manufactured by three-dimensional fused filament fabrication (FFF). PHBH belongs to the class of polyhydroxyalkanoates with interesting biodegradable and biocompatible capabilities, especially attractive for tissue engineering. Equally, FFF stands as a promising manufacturing technology for the production of custom-designed scaffolds. We address thermal, rheological and cytotoxicity properties of PHBH, placing special emphasis on the mechanical response of the printed material in a wide deformation range. Indeed, effective mechanical properties are assessed in both the linear and nonlinear regime. To warrant uniqueness of the material parameters, these are measured directly through digital image correlation, both in tension and compression, while experimental data fitting of finite-element analyses is only adopted for the determination of the second invariant coefficient in the nonlinear regime. Mechanical data are clearly porosity dependent, and they are given for both the cubic and the honeycomb infill pattern. Local strain spikes due to the presence of defects are observed and measured: those falling in the range 70-100% lead to macro-crack development and, ultimately, to failure. Results suggest the significant potential attached to FFF printing of PHBH for customizable medical devices which are biocompatible and mechanically resilient.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

Which Vaccine? The Cost of Religious Freedom in Vaccination Policy.

We discuss whether and under what conditions people should be allowed to choose which COVID-19 vaccine to receive on the basis of personal ethical views. The problem arises primarily with regard to some religious groups' concerns about the connection between certain COVID-19 vaccines and abortion. Vaccines currently approved in Western countries make use of foetal cell lines obtained from aborted foetuses either at the testing stage (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines) or at the development stage (Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine). The Catholic Church's position is that, if there are alternatives, Catholic people have a moral obligation to request the vaccine whose link with abortion is more remote, which at present means that they should refuse the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. We argue that any consideration regarding free choice of the vaccine should apply to religious and non-religious claims alike, in order to avoid religion-based discrimination. However, we also argue that, in a context of limited availability, considering the significant differences in costs and effectiveness profile of the vaccines available, people should only be allowed to choose the preferred vaccine if: 1) this does not risk compromising vaccination strategies; and 2) they internalize any additional cost that their choice might entail. The State should only subsidize the vaccine that is more cost-effective for any demographic group from the point of view of public health strategies.

The 'Ethical' COVID-19 Vaccine is the One that Preserves Lives: Religious and Moral Beliefs on the COVID-19 Vaccine.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health and economic emergency, and although effective vaccines are the best weapon we have against it, there are groups and individuals who oppose certain kinds of vaccines because of personal moral or religious reasons. The most widely discussed case has been that of certain religious groups that oppose research on COVID-19 vaccines that use cell lines linked to abortions and that object to receiving those vaccine because of their moral opposition to abortion. However, moral opposition to COVID-19 vaccine research can be based on other considerations, both secular and religious. We argue that religious or personal moral objections to vaccine research are unethical and irresponsible, and in an important sense often irrational. They are unethical because of the risk of causing serious harm to other people for no valid reason; irresponsible because they run counter to individual and collective responsibilities to contribute to important public health goals; and in the case of certain kinds of religious opposition, they might be irrational because they are internally inconsistent. All in all, our argument translates into the rather uncontroversial claim that we should prioritize people's lives over religious freedom in vaccine research and vaccination roll out.

Spoonful of honey or a gallon of vinegar? A conditional COVID-19 vaccination policy for front-line healthcare workers.

Seven COVID-19 vaccines are now being distributed and administered around the world (figure correct at the time of submission), with more on the horizon. It is widely accepted that healthcare workers should have high priority. However, questions have been raised about what we ought to do if members of priority groups refuse vaccination. Using the case of influenza vaccination as a comparison, we know that coercive approaches to vaccination uptake effectively increase vaccination rates among healthcare workers and reduce patient morbidity if properly implemented. Using the principle of least restrictive alternative, we have developed an intervention ladder for COVID-19 vaccination policies among healthcare workers. We argue that healthcare workers refusing vaccination without a medical reason should be temporarily redeployed and, if their refusal persists after the redeployment period, eventually suspended, in order to reduce the risk to their colleagues and patients. This 'conditional' policy is a compromise between entirely voluntary or entirely mandatory policies for healthcare workers, and is consistent with healthcare workers' established professional, legal and ethical obligations to their patients and to society at large.