A new Tuskegee? Unethical human experimentation and Western neocolonialism in the mass circumcision of African men.

Campaigns to circumcise millions of boys and men to reduce HIV transmission are being conducted throughout eastern and southern Africa, recommended by the World Health Organization and implemented by the United States government and Western NGOs. In the United States, proposals to mass-circumcise African and African American men are longstanding, and have historically relied on racist beliefs and stereotypes. The present campaigns were started in haste, without adequate contextual research, and the manner in which they have been carried out implies troubling assumptions about culture, health, and sexuality in Africa, as well as a failure to properly consider the economic determinants of HIV prevalence. This critical appraisal examines the history and politics of these circumcision campaigns while highlighting the relevance of race and colonialism. It argues that the "circumcision solution" to African HIV epidemics has more to do with cultural imperialism than with sound health policy, and concludes that African communities need a means of robust representation within the regime.

The need for a unified ethical stance on child genital cutting.

The American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Society for Pain Management Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics, and other largely US-based medical organizations have argued that at least some forms of non-therapeutic child genital cutting, including routine penile circumcision, are ethically permissible even when performed on non-consenting minors. In support of this view, these organizations have at times appealed to potential health benefits that may follow from removing sexually sensitive, non-diseased tissue from the genitals of such minors. We argue that these appeals to "health benefits" as a way of justifying medically unnecessary child genital cutting practices may have unintended consequences. For example, it may create a "loophole" through which certain forms of female genital cutting-or female genital "mutilation" as it is defined by the World Health Organization-could potentially be legitimized. Moreover, by comparing current dominant Western attitudes toward female genital "mutilation" and so-called intersex genital "normalization" surgeries (i.e. surgeries on children with certain differences of sex development), we show that the concept of health invoked in each case is inconsistent and culturally biased. It is time for Western healthcare organizations-including the American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Society for Pain Management Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics, and World Health Organization-to adopt a more consistent concept of health and a unified ethical stance when it comes to child genital cutting practices.

Towards responsible ejaculations: the moral imperative for male contraceptive responsibility.

In this paper, I argue that men should take primary responsibility for protecting against pregnancy. Male long-acting reversible contraceptives are currently in development, and, once approved, should be used as the standard method for avoiding pregnancy. Since women assume the risk of pregnancy when they engage in penis-in-vagina sex, men should do their utmost to ensure that their ejaculations are responsible, otherwise women shoulder a double burden of pregnancy risk plus contraceptive responsibility. Changing the expectations regarding responsibility for contraception would render penis-in-vagina sex more equitable, and could lead to a shift in the discourse around abortion access. I describe the sex asymmetries of contraceptive responsibility and of pregnancy-related risk, and offer arguments in favour of men taking primary responsibility for contraception. My arguments centre on: (1) analogies between contraception and vaccination, and unwanted pregnancy and disease; (2) a veil-of-ignorance approach, in which I contend that if a person were not told their sex, they would find a society in which men were expected to acquire and use effective contraceptives the fairest arrangement for everyone.

Instruments of health and harm: how the procurement of healthcare goods contributes to global health inequality.

Many healthcare goods, such as surgical instruments, textiles and gloves, are manufactured in unregulated factories and sweatshops where, amongst other labour rights violations, workers are subject to considerable occupational health risks. In this paper we undertake an ethical analysis of the supply of sweatshop-produced surgical goods to healthcare providers, with a specific focus on the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. We contend that while labour abuses and occupational health deficiencies are morally unacceptable in the production of any commodity, an additional wrong is incurred when the health of certain populations is secured in ways that endanger the health and well-being of people working and living elsewhere. While some measures have been taken to better regulate the supply chain to healthcare providers in the UK, further action is needed to ensure that surgical goods are sourced from suppliers who protect the labour and occupational health rights of their workers.

Why it is unethical to charge migrant women for pregnancy care in the National Health Service.

Pregnancy care is chargeable for migrants who do not have indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Women who are not 'ordinarily resident', including prospective asylum applicants, some refused asylum-seekers, unidentified victims of trafficking and undocumented people are required to pay substantial charges in order to access antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal services as well as abortion care within the National Health Service. In this paper, we consider the ethical issues generated by the exclusion of pregnancy care from the raft of services which are free to all. We argue that charging for pregnancy care amounts to sex discrimination, since without pregnancy care, sex may pose a barrier to good health. We also argue that charging for pregnancy care violates bodily autonomy, entrenches the sex asymmetry of sexual responsibility, centres the male body and produces health risks for women and neonates. We explore some of the ideological motivations for making maternity care chargeable, and suggest that its exclusion responds to xenophobic populism. We recommend that pregnancy care always be free regardless of citizenship or residence status, and briefly explore how these arguments bear on the broader moral case against chargeable healthcare for migrants.

Tropicality and abjection: What do we really mean by "Neglected Tropical Diseases"?

Neglected tropical diseases are defined operationally as diseases that prevail in "tropical" regions and are under-researched, under-funded, and under-treated compared with their disease burden. By analysing the adjectives "tropical" and "neglected," I expose and interrogate the discourses within which the term "neglected tropical disease" derives its meaning. First, I argue that the term "tropical" conjures the notion of "tropicality," a form of Othering which erroneously explains the disease-prevalence of "tropical" regions by reference to environmental determinism, rather than colonialism and neocolonialism. Second, I examine the way in which this Othering enables the abjection of tropical regions and their peoples, leading to neglect. I recommend that the term "neglected tropical diseases" be more carefully contextualised within health scholarship, education, and policy.

Austerity or Xenophobia? The Causes and Costs of the "Hostile Environment" in the NHS.

During the "age of austerity" the UK government has progressively limited free health services for "overseas visitors" on the grounds of fairness and frugality. This is despite the fact that the cost of the additional bureaucracy required by the new system and the public health consequences are expected to exceed the sums saved. In this article I explore the interaction between the discourses of austerity and xenophobia as they relate to migrants' access to healthcare. By examining the available data and adjudicating various moral arguments, I cast doubt on the claim that the current charging regulations are cost-effective and fair. I instead contend that if the UK is concerned with running a health service that is economically-sustainable and morally-defensible, it is critical that migrants are welcomed, both as staff and as patients. I conclude by arguing that xenophobia has precipitated changes to the health service which do not qualify as "austerity" in the way that is claimed, but rather deliberately produce a "hostile environment" for migrants, despite this very likely generating economic losses.

Health worker migration and migrant healthcare: Seeking cosmopolitanism in the NHS.

The U.K.'s National Health Service (NHS) is critically reliant on staff from overseas, which means that a sizeable number of U.K. healthcare professionals have received their training at the cost of other states, whose populations are urgently in need of healthcare professionals. At the same time, while healthcare is widely seen as a primary good, many migrants are unable to access the NHS without charge, and anti-immigration political trends are likely to further reduce that access. Both of these topics have received close attention in the global health ethics literature. In this article, I make the novel move of suggesting that these two seemingly disparate issues should be folded into the same moral narrative. The 'brain drain' upon which the NHS and its users depend derives from the same gradient of wealth, security, and opportunity that produces migrants who require the NHS. I endorse moral cosmopolitanism as a lens for understanding patients' right to healthcare regardless of nationality or immigration status. I argue that the NHS in its current formulation effectively enacts a partial cosmopolitanism in its reliance on medical workers from abroad, but could more meaningfully instantiate that cosmopolitanism were it to offer the same healthcare to migrants as it does to citizens.

No Understanding, No Consent: The Case Against Alternative Medicine.

The demand for informed consent in clinical medicine is usually justified on the basis that it promotes patient autonomy. In this article I argue that the most effective way to promote autonomy is to improve patient understanding in order to reduce the epistemic disparity between patient and medical professional. Informed consent therefore derives its moral value from its capacity to reduce inequalities of power as they derive from epistemic inequalities. So in order for a patient to have given informed consent, she must understand the treatment. I take this to mean that she has sufficient knowledge of its causal mechanisms and has accepted the explanations in which the treatment is implicated. If this interpretation of informed consent is correct, it is unethical for medical professionals to offer or endorse 'alternative medicine' treatments, for which there is no known causal mechanism, for if they do, they may end up widening the epistemic disparity. In this way, informed consent may be understood as an effective way of ruling out particular treatments in order to improve patient autonomy and maintain trust in the medical profession.

Impacts of the Global Gag Rule on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the Global South: A scoping review.

The Global Gag Rule is a United States policy that blocks global health funding to foreign non-governmental organisations if they engage in abortion-related activities. It has been implemented by every Republican administration since 1984 and remains in operation at the time of writing in its most stringent and extensive form. It has been criticised for its implications for women's bodily autonomy, its censorship of non-governmental organisations and health professionals, and for its impact on the health of populations in affected countries. To capture the effects of the policy to date, we conducted a scoping review in April 2020. Forty-eight articles met our eligibility criteria, and were analysed thematically, noting the effects on: the operations of non-governmental organisations; maternal health; sexually transmitted infections; marginalised groups; reproductive rights. We found that the policy increased the abortion rate and had a negative impact on maternal health, STIs, and the health of marginalised groups. We conclude that the policy amounts to the neocolonial co-optation of sexual and reproductive health in the Global South to advance an ideological agenda in the Global North. We urge that the policy be repealed as part of the broader project of protecting and decolonising sexual and reproductive health globally.

Medicine is Patriarchal, But Alternative Medicine is Not the Answer.

Women are over-represented within alternative medicine, both as consumers and as service providers. In this paper, I show that the appeal of alternative medicine to women relates to the neglect of women's health needs within scientific medicine. This is concerning because alternative medicine is severely limited in its therapeutic effects; therefore, those who choose alternative therapies are liable to experience inadequate healthcare. I argue that while many patients seek greater autonomy in alternative medicine, the absence of an evidence base and plausible mechanisms of action leaves patients unable to realize meaningful autonomy. This seems morally troubling, especially given that the neglect of women's needs within scientific medicine seems to contribute to preferences for alternative medicine. I conclude that the liberatory credentials of alternative medicine should be questioned and make recommendations to render scientific medicine better able to meet the needs of typical alternative medicine consumers.