Global health, planetary health, One Health: conceptual and ethical challenges and concerns.

The Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically shown the level of interconnectedness of the human population, the direct relation between human health and the ecosystem, as well as the enormous ethical challenges required for a global response. Relatedly, society has been directly confronted by issues of 'Global health,' both in terms of awareness of health conditions and health systems resiliency all around the world, as well as in terms of governance of the worldwide response and its implications at national and local levels. While Global health is often used as a cosmetic label for neocolonial approaches, it is really an interdisciplinary approach consisting of the interaction between globalization and the determinants of health. Thus, it involves the ecosystem and its transformation and implies a systemic 'One Health' decolonized approach in the definition of its strategies. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the inequities and the limits of the current hegemonic Global health system governance; calling for ethics to provide a renewed, comprehensive, inclusive, and decolonized conceptualization of Global health.

Cultural competency and ethical behavior for collaboration in limited-resource settings: Guidelines from the Society of University Surgeons Academic Global Surgery Committee and the Association for Academic Global Surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are an increasing number of global surgery activities worldwide. With such tremendous growth, there is a potential risk for untoward interactions between high-income country members and low-middle income country members, leading to programmatic failure, poor results, and/or low impact. METHODS: Key concepts for cultural competency and ethical behavior were generated by the Academic Global Surgery Committee of the Society for University Surgeons in collaboration with the Association for Academic Global Surgery. Both societies ensured active participation from high-income countries and low-middle income countries. RESULTS: The guidelines provide a framework for cultural competency and ethical behavior for high-income country members when collaborating with low-middle income country partners by offering recommendations for: (1) preparation for work with low-middle income countries; (2) process standardization; (3) working with the local community; (4) limits of practice; (5) patient autonomy and consent; (6) trainees; (7) potential pitfalls; and (8) gray areas. CONCLUSION: The article provides an actionable framework to address potential cultural competency and ethical behavior issues in high-income country - low-middle income country global surgery collaborations.

Fidelity in Academic Global Surgery and Research: Incorporating Trustworthiness in the Development of Research Partnerships, Infrastructure, and Policy.

Academic global surgery consists of collaborative partnerships that address surgical inequities through research, training, education, advocacy, and diplomacy. It has been characterized by increased scholastic production through global surgery publications, dedicated global surgery sessions within scientific conferences, global surgery-specific research grants, database development to support global surgery research, global surgery research fellowships, and global surgery-based academic promotion paradigms. The increased emphasis on global surgery research has been accompanied by multiple ethical challenges. This article reviews critical ethical dilemmas presented by global surgery research efforts and proposes interventions on the partnership, infrastructural, and policy levels to enhance fidelity within research partnerships.

Attacks on Health Care Used as a Weapon of War in Ukraine and Globally: The Demand for Accountability.

In this Viewpoint, authors from Physicians for Human Rights and the Ukrainian Healthcare Center present findings from a joint report documenting the attacks on health care workers and facilities as a weapon of war in the Russian war with Ukraine.

American Medical Trainee Perspectives on Ethical Conflicts during a Short-Term Global Health Rotation in Ethiopia: A Qualitative Analysis of 30 Cases.

There has been a significant increase in the number of students, residents, and fellows from high-income settings participating in short-term global health experiences (STGHEs) during their medical training. This analysis explores a series of ethical conflicts reported by medical residents and fellows from Emory University School of Medicine in the United States who participated in a 1-month global health rotation in Ethiopia. A constant comparative analysis was conducted using 30 consecutive reflective essays to identify emerging categories and themes of ethical conflicts experienced by the trainees. Ethical conflicts were internal; based in the presence of the visiting trainee and their personal interactions; or external, occurring due to witnessed events. Themes within internal conflicts include issues around professional identity and insufficient preparation for the rotation. External experiences were further stratified by the trainee's perception that Ethiopian colleagues agreed that the scenario represented an ethical conflict (congruent) or disagreed with the visiting trainee's perspective (incongruent). Examples of congruent themes included recognizing opportunities for collaboration and witnessing ethical conflicts that are similar to those experienced in the United States. Incongruent themes included utilization of existing resources, issues surrounding informed consent, and differing expectations of clinical outcomes. By acknowledging the frequency and roots of ethical conflicts experienced during STGHEs, sponsors may better prepare visiting trainees and reframe these conflicts as collaborative educational experiences that benefit both the visiting trainee and host providers.

Epistemic injustice in academic global health.

This Viewpoint calls attention to the pervasive wrongs related to knowledge production, use, and circulation in global health, many of which are taken for granted. We argue that common practices in academic global health (eg, authorship practices, research partnerships, academic writing, editorial practices, sensemaking practices, and the choice of audience or research framing, questions, and methods) are peppered with epistemic wrongs that lead to or exacerbate epistemic injustice. We describe two forms of epistemic wrongs, credibility deficit and interpretive marginalisation, which stem from structural exclusion of marginalised producers and recipients of knowledge. We then illustrate these forms of epistemic wrongs using examples of common practices in academic global health, and show how these wrongs are linked to the pose (or positionality) and the gaze (or audience) of producers of knowledge. The epistemic injustice framework shown in this Viewpoint can help to surface, detect, communicate, make sense of, avoid, and potentially undo unfair knowledge practices in global health that are inflicted upon people in their capacity as knowers, and as producers and recipients of knowledge, owing to structural prejudices in the processes involved in knowledge production, use, and circulation in global health.

Time for the ethical management of COVID-19 vaccines.

The ethical distribution of life-saving medical and public health interventions to vulnerable groups has often been overlooked. Valuation of life linked to an individual's country of origin, the pharmaceutical industry's prioritisation of profit, the exploitation of vulnerable groups in clinical trials, and the resulting hesitancy towards drugs and vaccines have, among other factors, made the human right to health unattainable for many people. The COVID-19 pandemic presents itself as an opportunity to reverse this long-standing trajectory of unethical practices in global health. By ensuring the ethical inclusion of vulnerable groups in the vaccine development process and making a safe, effective vaccine accessible to all, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and international organisations can usher in a new era of global health that relies solely on ethical decision making.