'VaxTax': a follow-up proposal for a global vaccine pandemic response fund.

Equal access to vaccines has been one of the key ethical challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most scholars consider the massive purchase and hoarding of vaccines by high-income countries, especially at the beginning of the pandemic, to be unjust towards the vulnerable living in low-income countries. A recent proposal by Andreas Albertsen of a vaccine tax has been put forward to remedy this problem. Under such a scheme, high-income countries would pay a contribution, conceptualised as a vaccine tax, dedicated to buying vaccines and distributing them to low and middle-income countries. Proceeding from this proposal, we critically assess the feasibility of a vaccine tax and suggest how to conceptualise and implement a vaccine tax in practice. We present our 'VaxTax model' and explore its comparative advantages and disadvantages while considering other possible measures to address the global vaccine access problem, also in view of future pandemics and disease outbreaks.

Proportionality and Mexico's pandemic management during the COVID-19 crisis.

Mexico's pandemic management and the absence of measures have been harshly criticized as being disproportionate. This paper examines whether the proportionality principle was properly applied to Mexico's COVID-19 response and outlines three reasons against such an endeavor, namely (i) the content of "proportionate measures" remained insufficiently well defined, (ii) there were yet fundamental rights conflicts to resolve, and (iii) the situation was moreover characterized by epistemic uncertainty.

Blacklisting Health Insurance Premium Defaulters: Is Denial of Medical Care Ethically Justifiable?

Rising health insurance costs and the cost of living crisis are likely leading to an increase in unpaid health insurance bills in many countries. In Switzerland, a particularly drastic measure to sanction defaulting insurance payers is employed. Since 2012, Swiss cantons - who have to cover most of the bills of defaulting payers - are allowed by federal law to blacklist them and to restrict their access to medical care to emergencies.In our paper, we briefly describe blacklisting in the context of the Swiss healthcare system before we examine the ethical issues involved in light of what is known about its social and health impacts. We found no evidence that blacklisting serves as an effective way of recovering unpaid health insurance contributions or of strengthening solidarity within the health insurance system. Furthermore, the ambiguous definitions of what constitutes an emergency treatment and the incompatibility of the denial of medical care with the obligation to provide professional assistance complicate the implementation of blacklists and expose care providers to enormous pressure.Therefore, we conclude that blacklists and the (partial) denial of medical care not only pose profound ethical problems but are also unsuitable for fulfilling the purpose for which they were introduced.

What does the best interests principle of the convention on the rights of the child mean for paediatric healthcare?

The present review analyses the implications of the best interests of the child principle, which is one of the most widely discussed principles of medical ethics and human rights, for paediatric healthcare. As a starting point, it presents the interpretation of the best interests principle by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. On this basis, it points out possible fields of application of the best interests principle with regard to paediatric healthcare and discusses the potential difficulties in the application of the best interests principle. Based on this, it illustrates the implications of the best interests principle for paediatric healthcare through four case studies, which look at ethical dilemmas in paediatric gynaecology, end-of-life care, HIV care and genetic testing.   Conclusion: The best interests principle requires action, inter alia, by health policymakers, professional associations, hospital managers and medical teams to ensure children receive the best possible healthcare. Whilst the best interests principle does not provide a conclusive solution to all ethical dilemmas in paediatric healthcare (as illustrated by the case studies), it provides children, medical teams, parents and families, and clinical ethicists with an indispensable framework for health care centred on the rights of the child. What is Known: • The best interests principle is one of the most widely discussed principles of medical ethics and human rights and one of the four general principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What is New: • The present review discusses possible fields of application and potential difficulties of the best interests principle with regard to paediatric healthcare. • Based on this, it illustrates the implications of the best interests principle for paediatric healthcare through four case studies, which look at ethical dilemmas in paediatric gynaecology, end-of-life care, HIV care and genetic testing.

Resource allocation in the Covid-19 health crisis: are Covid-19 preventive measures consistent with the Rule of Rescue?

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a health crisis of a scale unprecedented in post-war Europe. In response, a large amount of healthcare resources have been redirected to Covid-19 preventive measures, for instance population-wide vaccination campaigns, large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing, and the large-scale distribution of protective equipment (e.g., N95 respirators) to high-risk groups and hospitals and nursing homes. Despite the importance of these measures in epidemiological and economic terms, health economists and medical ethicists have been relatively silent about the ethical rationales underlying the large-scale allocation of healthcare resources to these measures. The present paper seeks to encourage this debate by demonstrating how the resource allocation to Covid-19 preventive measures can be understood through the paradigm of the Rule of Rescue, without claiming that the Rule of Rescue is the sole rationale of resource allocation in the Covid-19 pandemic.

Challenges Posed by Transnational Commercial Surrogacy: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

There is little consensus between European States regarding the legal treatment of surrogacy in general and of transnational commercial surrogacy in particular. Against this background, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in this matter is of particular significance since it provides some common ground for the legal treatment of transnational commercial surrogacy in Europe. For this reason, the present paper will outline the development of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR on transnational commercial surrogacy, giving particular attention to the Mennesson and Labassee decisions, the Paradiso/Campanelli case, and the 2019 Advisory Opinion. On this basis, it will conclude by underlining the importance of the best interests of the child principle in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR on transnational commercial surrogacy.

Ethical Issues in Breastfeeding and Lactation Interventions: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Infant feeding interventions that promote and support breastfeeding are considered important contributions to global public health. As these interventions often target private settings (e.g., individuals' homes) and involve vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant women, infants, and underprivileged families), a keen awareness of ethical issues is crucial. RESEARCH AIM: The purpose of this scoping review was to capture the key elements of the current ethical discourse regarding breastfeeding and lactation interventions. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) methodology to identify the ethical issues of breastfeeding and lactation interventions as they are reflected in the scholarly literature published between January 1990 and October 2022. Abstracts (N = 3715) from PubMed, ScienceDirect, JSTOR and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were screened. The final sample consisted of 26 publications. RESULTS: The recurring ethical issues identified in these studies were: the normative assumptions of motherhood; maternal autonomy and informed choice; information disclosure, balancing risks and benefits, and counseling practices; stigma and social context; ethics of health communication in breastfeeding campaigns; and the ethical acceptability of financial incentives in breastfeeding interventions. CONCLUSION: This review illustrated that, while a wide range of ethical arguments were examined, the emphasis has been primarily on accounting for mothers' experiences and lactating persons' choices, as well as achieving public health objectives relating to infant nutrition in breastfeeding interventions. To effectively and ethically implement breastfeeding and lactation interventions, we must consider the social, economic, and cultural contexts in which they occur. One key learning identified was that women's experiences were missing in these interventions and, in response, we suggest moving beyond the dichotomous approach of individual health versus population health.