Contractualist age rationing under outbreak circumstances.

Age rationing is a central issue in the health care priority-setting literature, but it has become ever more salient in the light of the Covid-19 outbreak, where health authorities in several countries have given higher priority to younger over older patients. But how is age rationing different under outbreak circumstances than under normal circumstances, and what does this difference imply for ethical theories? This is the topic of this paper. The paper argues that outbreaks such as that of Covid-19 involve special circumstances that change how age should influence our prioritization decisions, and that while this shift in circumstances poses a problem for consequentialist views such as utilitarianism and age-weighted consequentialism, contractualism is better equipped to cope with it. The paper then offers a contractualist prudential account of age rationing under outbreak circumstances.

Allocation of scarce resources in Africa during COVID-19: Utility and justice for the bottom of the pyramid?

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised important universal public health challenges. Conceiving ethical responses to these challenges is a public health imperative but must take context into account. This is particularly important in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In this paper, we examine how some of the ethical recommendations offered so far in high-income countries might appear from a SSA perspective. We also reflect on some of the key ethical challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic in low-income countries suffering from chronic shortages in health care resources, and chronic high morbidity and mortality from non-COVID-19 causes. A parallel is drawn between the distribution of severity of COVID-19 disease and the classic "Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid" model that is relevant in SSA. Focusing allocation of resources during COVID-19 on the 'thick' part of the pyramid in Low-to-Middle Income Countries (LMICs) could be ethically justified on utilitarian and social justice grounds, since it prioritizes a large number of persons who have been economically and socially marginalized. During the pandemic, importing allocation frameworks focused on the apex of the pyramid from the global north may therefore not always be appropriate. In a post-COVID-19 world, we need to think strategically about how health care systems can be financed and structured to ensure broad access to adequate health care for all who need it. The root problems underlying health inequity, exposed by COVID-19, must be addressed, not just to prepare for the next pandemic, but to care for people in resource poor settings in non-pandemic times.

Healthcare in Extreme and Austere Environments: Responding to the Ethical Challenges.

Clinicians may increasingly find themselves practicing, by choice or necessity, in resource-poor or extreme environments. This often requires altering typical patterns of practice with a different set of medical and ethical considerations than are usually faced by clinicians practicing in hospitals in the United States and Europe. Practitioners may be required to alter their usual scope of practice or their standard ways of medically treating patients. Limited resources will also often place clinicians in the position of having to make decisions about fairly allocating healthcare, which will alter the physician-patient relationship. This does not absolve physicians and other healthcare practitioners of providing the best quality of care that can be given under the circumstances. In addition, the lack of a well-developed healthcare infrastructure and limited resources will require working with established providers to determine the needs of the community, and what types of healthcare are feasible given these limitations. The essays in this issue of HEC Forum encourage readers to reflect on the unique ethical challenges faced in the extreme or austere environment.

Ethical issues raised by cluster randomised trials conducted in low-resource settings: identifying gaps in the Ottawa Statement through an analysis of the PURE Malawi trial.

The increasing use of cluster randomised trials in low-resource settings raises unique ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomised Trials is the first international ethical guidance document specific to cluster trials, but it is unknown if it adequately addresses issues in low-resource settings. In this paper, we seek to identify any gaps in the Ottawa Statement relevant to cluster trials conducted in low-resource settings. Our method is (1) to analyse a prototypical cluster trial conducted in a low-resource setting (PURE Malawi trial) with the Ottawa Statement; (2) to identify ethical issues in the design or conduct of the trial not captured adequately and (3) to make recommendations for issues needing attention in forthcoming revisions to the Ottawa Statement Our analysis identified six ethical aspects of cluster randomised trials in low-resource settings that require further guidance. The forthcoming revision of the Ottawa Statement should provide additional guidance on these issues: (1) streamlining research ethics committee review for collaborating investigators who are affiliated with other institutions; (2) the classification of lay health workers who deliver study interventions as health providers or research participants; (3) the dilemma experienced by investigators when national standards seem to prohibit waivers of consent; (4) the timing of gatekeeper engagement, particularly when researchers face funding constraints; (5) providing ancillary care in health services or implementation trials when a routine care control arm is known to fall below national standards and (6) defining vulnerable participants needing protection in low-resource settings.

Ethics in humanitarian efforts: when should resources be allocated to paediatric heart surgery?

BACKGROUND: In countries with ample resources, no debate exists as to whether heart surgery should be provided. However, where funding is limited, what responsibility exists to care for children with congenital heart defects? If children have a "right" to surgical treatment, to whom is the "duty" to provide it assigned? These questions are subjected to ethical analysis. METHODS: Examination is initially based on the four principles of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Consideration of beneficence and justice is expanded using a consequentialist approach. RESULTS: Social structures, including governments, exist to foster the common good. Society, whether by means of government funding or otherwise, has the responsibility, according to the means available, to assure health care for all based on the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. In wealthy countries, adequate resources exist to fund appropriate treatment; hence it should be provided to all based on distributive justice. In resource-limited countries, however, decisions regarding provision of care for expensive or complex health problems must be made with consideration for broader effects on the general public. Preliminary data from cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that many surgical interventions, including cardiac surgery, may be resource-efficient. Given that information, utilitarian ethical analysis supports dedication of resources to congenital heart surgery in many low-income countries. In the poorest countries, where access to drinking water and basic nutrition is problematic, it will often be more appropriate to focus on these issues first. CONCLUSION: Ethical analysis supports dedication of resources to congenital heart surgery in all but the poorest countries.

Newborns in crisis: An outline of neonatal ethical dilemmas in humanitarian medicine.

Newborn infants are among those most severely affected by humanitarian crises. Aid organisations increasingly recognise the necessity to provide for the medical needs of newborns, however, this may generate distinctive ethical questions for those providing humanitarian medical care. Medical ethical approaches to neonatal care familiar in other settings may not be appropriate given the diversity and volatility of humanitarian disasters, and the extreme resource limitations commonly faced by humanitarian aid missions. In this paper, we first systematically review existing guidelines relating to the treatment and resuscitation of newborns in humanitarian crises, finding little substantive ethical guidance for those providing humanitarian healthcare. We next draw on paradigm cases and published literature to identify and describe some of the major ethical questions common to these settings. We divide these questions into quality of life considerations, allocation of limited resources, and conflicting cultural norms and values. We finally suggest some preliminary recommendations to guide ethical decision-making around resuscitation of newborns and withdrawal of treatment in humanitarian settings.

Appeal to the Rule of Rescue in health care: discriminating and not benevolent?

Thirty years of debate have passed since the term "Rule of Rescue" has been introduced into medical ethics. Its main focus was on whether or why medical treatment for acute conditions should have priority over preventive measures irrespective of opportunity costs. Recent contributions, taking account of the widespread reluctance to accept purely efficiency-oriented prioritization approaches, advance another objection: Prioritizing treatment, they hold, discriminates against statistical lives. The reference to opportunity costs has also been renewed in a distinctly ethical fashion: It has been stipulated that favoring help for identifiable lives amounts to a lack of benevolence for one's fellow creatures. The present article argues against both objections. It suggests that the debate's focus on consequences (deaths or severe ill health) should be reoriented by asking which aspects of such states of affairs are actually attributable to a decision maker who judges within a specific situation of choice.

Microlevel Prioritizations and Incommensurability.

This article addresses the prioritization questions that arise when people attempt to institutionalize reasonable ethical principles and create guidelines for microlevel decisions. I propose that this instantiates an incommensurability problem, and suggest two different kinds of practical solutions for dealing with this issue.

Against the integrative turn in bioethics: burdens of understanding.

The advocates of Integrative Bioethics have insisted that this recently emerging project aspires to become a new stage of bioethical development, surpassing both biomedically oriented bioethics and global bioethics. We claim in this paper that if the project wants to successfully replace the two existing paradigms, it at least needs to properly address and surmount the lack of common moral vocabulary problem. This problem points to a semantic incommensurability due to cross-language communication in moral terms. This paper proceeds as follows. In the first part, we provide an overview of Integrative Bioethics and its conceptual building blocks: mutlidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. In the second part, we disclose the problem of semantic incommensurability. The third part gives an overview of various positions on the understanding of interdisciplinarity and integration in interdisciplinary communication, and corresponding attempts at solving the lack of common moral vocabulary problem. Here we lean mostly on Holbrook's three theses regarding the character of interdisciplinary communication. Finally, in the fourth part, we discuss a particular bioethical case-that of euthanasia-to demonstrate the challenge semantic incommensurability poses to dialogues in Integrative Bioethics. We conclude that Integrative Bioethics does not offer a methodological toolset that would warrant optimism in its advocates' predictions of surpassing current modes of doing bioethics. Since Integrative Bioethics leaves controversial methodological questions unresolved on almost all counts and shows no attempts at overcoming the critical stumbling points, we argue for its rejection.

Fair Resource Allocation to Health Research: Priority Topics for Bioethics Scholarship.

This article draws attention to the limited amount of scholarship on what constitutes fairness and equity in resource allocation to health research by individual funders. It identifies three key decisions of ethical significance about resource allocation that research funders make regularly and calls for prioritizing scholarship on those topics - namely, how health resources should be fairly apportioned amongst public health and health care delivery versus health research, how health research resources should be fairly allocated between health problems experienced domestically versus other health problems typically experienced by disadvantaged populations outside the funder's country, and how domestic and non-domestic health research funding should be further apportioned to different areas, e.g. types of research and recipients. These three topics should be priorities for bioethics research because their outcomes have a substantial bearing on the achievement of health justice. The proposed agenda aims to move discussion on the ethics of health research funding beyond its current focus on the mismatch between worldwide basic and clinical research investment and the global burden of disease. Individual funders' decision-making on whether and to what extent to allocate resources to non-domestic health research, health systems research, research on the social determinants of health, capacity development, and recipients in certain countries should also be the focus of ethical scrutiny.

[The Rule of Rescue - Irrational and Discriminating?] / Rule of Rescue vs. Rettung statistischer Leben.

State of the debate: The "Rule of Rescue" refers to the practice that, in order to save people from immediate peril, societies incur high costs largely irrespective of the fact that many more lives could be saved under alternative uses of the resources. The practice has been found difficult to explain, let alone justify, and has often been criticized. In the early literature in the context of the Oregon rationing experiment, the irrationality objection dominated in view of the obvious lack to consider opportunity costs. More recent contributions, taking account of the declining support for purely efficiency-oriented prioritization approaches, advance an equity objection: The practice discriminates against statistical lives. Intent of the present contribution: This article provides a critical assessment of both objections. Results: The following contentions result from the analysis: 1. The equity objection is unfounded; 2. Following the rule of rescue is (in a certain sense) inefficient, but it is not irrational; 3. The criticized judgments result from deep-seated shortcomings in the action-theoretical concepts used (or rather, omitted) in the literature. These shortcomings are inherent in the consequentialist framework dominating the debate and deserve more attention.

Preparing students for the ethical challenges on international health electives: A systematic review of the literature on educational interventions.

International health electives pose specific ethical challenges for students travelling from to low and middle income countries. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on interventions to prepare students to identify ethical issues addressed, educational approaches and to collate evidence on the effectiveness of different strategies. We searched nine electronic databases of peer-reviewed literature and identified grey literature through key word searches; supplemented through citation mapping and expert consultation. Articles that described ethical training conducted by universities or professional bodies were included for review. We reviewed forty-four full text articles. Ten sources of published literature and seven sources of grey literature met our inclusion criteria. We identified thirteen ethical situations that students should be prepared to manage and eight generic skills to support this process. Most interventions were delivered before the elective, used case studies or guidelines. Some suggested ethical principles or a framework for analysis of ethical issues. Only two papers evaluated the intervention described. Our paper collates a small but growing body of work on education to prepare students to manage ethical issues. Ethical training should have elements that are delivered before, during and after the elective. Interventions should include case studies covering thirteen ethical issues identified here, linked to ethical principles and a process for responding to ethical issues. We suggest that evaluations of interventions are an important area for future research.

"Best care on home ground" versus "elitist healthcare": concerns and competing expectations for medical tourism development in Barbados.

INTRODUCTION: Many countries have demonstrated interest in expanding their medical tourism sectors because of its potential economic and health system benefits. However, medical tourism poses challenges to the equitable distribution of health resources between international and local patients and private and public medical facilities. Currently, very little is known about how medical tourism is perceived among front line workers and users of health systems in medical tourism 'destinations'. Barbados is one such country currently seeking to expand its medical tourism sector. Barbadian nurses and health care users were consulted about the challenges and benefits posed by ongoing medical tourism development there. METHODS: Focus groups were held with two stakeholder groups in May, 2013. Nine (n = 9) citizens who use the public health system participated in the first focus group and seven (n = 7) nurses participated in the second. Each focus group ran for 1.5 hours and was digitally recorded. Following transcription, thematic analysis of the digitally coded focus group data was conducted to identify cross-cutting themes and issues. RESULTS: Three core concerns regarding medical tourism's health equity impacts were raised; its potential to 1) incentivize migration of health workers from public to private facilities, 2) burden Barbados' lone tertiary health care centre, and 3) produce different tiers of quality of care within the same health system. These concerns were informed and tempered by the existing a) health system structure that incorporates both universal public healthcare and a significant private medical sector, b) international mobility among patients and health workers, and c) Barbados' large recreational tourism sector, which served as the main reference in discussions about medical tourism's impacts. Incorporating these concerns and contextual influences, participants' shared their expectations of how medical tourism should locally develop and operate. CONCLUSIONS: By engaging with local health workers and users, we begin to unpack how potential health equity impacts of medical tourism in an emerging destination are understood by local stakeholders who are not directing sector development. This further outlines how these groups employ knowledge from their home context to ground and reconcile their hopes and concerns for the impacts posed by medical tourism.

Reexamining Healthcare Justice in the Light of Empirical Data.

This article discusses the notion of justice from a capabilities approach. We undertake an empirical analysis of the concepts of justice held by healthcare personnel, gleaned from a qualitative analysis of interviews on the subject of ethical dilemmas in everyday practice. The article states that Justice undoubtedly presents a work in progress, which implicates the link between justice as capability and human dignity. We empirically found a contrast between the views of justice based on the patient's own perceptions and those based on the perceptions of healthcare personnel. We establish the kind of actions, communication skills and justice required to build a stronger relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, which would improve prognosis, treatment efficiency and therapeutic adhesion.

Ethics in global surgery.

Global surgery, while historically a small niche, is becoming a larger part of the global health enterprise. This article discusses the burden of global surgery, emphasizing the importance of addressing surgical needs in low- and middle-income countries. It describes the barriers to surgical care in the developing world, the ethical challenges that these barriers create, and strategies to overcome these barriers. It emphasizes the crucial role of preparation for global surgical interventions as a way to maximize benefits as well as minimize harms and ethical challenges. It ends with the cautionary statement that preparation does not eliminate ethical problems, so surgical volunteers must be prepared not only for the technical challenges of global surgery but also for the ethical challenges.

Evaluation of the work of hospital districts' research ethics committees in Finland.

The main task of research ethics committees (RECs) is to assess research studies before their start. In this study, 24 RECs that evaluate medical research were sent questionnaires about their structure and functions. The RECs were divided into two separate groups: those working in university hospital districts (uRECs) and those in central hospital districts (non-uRECs). The two groups were different in many respects: the uRECs were bigger in size, covered a wider range of disciplines (both medical and non-medical), had better resources and more frequent and regular meetings. After the survey was performed and analysed, the Medical Research Act was amended so that only hospital districts with a medical faculty in their region had a duty to establish ethics committees. After the amendment, the number of RECs evaluating medical research in Finland decreased from 25 to 9. The ethics committees that remained had wider expertise and were better equipped already by the time of this survey. Only one non-uREC was continuing its work, and this was being done under the governance of a university hospital district. Simple measures were used for qualitative analysis of the work of RECs that evaluate medical research. These showed differences between RECs. This may be helpful in establishing an ethics committee network in a research field or administrational area.

Justifying community benefit requirements in international research.

It is widely agreed that foreign sponsors of research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are morally required to ensure that their research benefits the broader host community. There is no agreement, however, about how much benefit or what type of benefit research sponsors must provide, nor is there agreement about what group of people is entitled to benefit. To settle these questions, it is necessary to examine why research sponsors have an obligation to benefit the broader host community, not only their subjects. Justifying this claim is not straightforward. There are three justifications for an obligation to benefit host communities that each apply to some research, but not to all. Each requires a different amount of benefit, and each requires benefit to be directed toward a different group. If research involves significant net risk to LMIC subjects, research must provide adequate benefit to people in LMICs to avoid an unjustified appeal to subjects' altruism. If research places significant burdens on public resources, research must provide fair compensation to the community whose public resources are burdened. If research is for profit, research sponsors must contribute adequately to the upkeep of public goods from which they benefit in order to avoid the wrong of free-riding, even if their use of these public goods is not burdensome.