Letter to Friends: My Quest for Racial Healing.

This past year brought the deadliest pandemic of our time and a huge social awakening and movement for racial justice. It became clear to me in late spring that I needed to learn more about structural racism, White supremacy, racial healthcare disparities, unconscious bias, and my own prejudices that govern my attitudes, values, behaviors, and decisions as a nurse leader, faculty member, board member, and a human being. To that end, I began to read, watch, and listen to both scholarly and lay journals and media that provide historical and current empirical accounts and studies of how racism and White supremacy have dominated our society, organizations, and communities in the United States for hundreds of years.

Looking forward to the next 15 years: innovation and new pathways for research in health equity.

Since our launch in 2002, the International Journal for Equity in Health (IJEqH) has furthered our collective understanding of equity in health and health services by providing a platform on which academics and practitioners can share their work. Today, we celebrate our fifteenth anniversary with an article collection that presents a call for new and novel research in equity in health and we invite our authors to use new approaches and methods, and to focus on emerging areas of research related to health equity in order to set the stage for the next fifteen years of health equity research.Our anniversary issue provides a platform for expanding the conceptualization, diversity of populations and study designs, and for increasing the use of novel methodologies in the field. The IJEqH has helped to support the wider group of researchers, policymakers and practitioners with a commitment to social justice and equity but there is still more to do. With the help of the highly committed editorial team and editorial board, the innovative work of researchers worldwide, and the countless of hours dedicated by hundreds of reviewers, we are confident in the IJEqH's ability to continue supporting the dissemination of health equity research for years to come.

A Question of Social Justice: How Policies of Profit Negate Engagement of Developing World Bioethicists and Undermine Global Bioethics.

We identify the ways the policies of leading international bioethics journals limit the participation of researchers working in the resource-constrained settings of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the development of the field of bioethics. Lack of access to essential scholarly resources makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many LMIC bioethicists to learn from, meaningfully engage in, and further contribute to the global bioethics discourse. Underrepresentation of LMIC perspectives in leading journals sustains the hegemony of Western bioethics, limits the presentation of diverse moral visions of life, health, and medicine, and undermines aspirations to create a truly "global" bioethics. Limited attention to this problem indicates a lack of empathy and moral imagination on the part of bioethicists in high-income countries, raises questions about the ethics of bioethics, and highlights the urgent need to find ways to remedy this social injustice.

Towards Equity in Health: Researchers Take Stock.

For the 2016 end-of-the-year editorial, the PLOS Medicine editors asked 7 global health leaders to discuss developments relevant to the equitable provision of medical care to all populations. The result is a collection of expert views on ethical trial design, research during outbreaks, high-burden infectious diseases, diversity in research and protection of migrants.

What is the Common Morality, Really?

In recent editions of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress' Principles of Biomedical Ethics, their famous principles have been deployed as elements of the common morality recruited to anchor bioethical reasoning. In Principles, however, Beauchamp and Childress defend neither their assertions about the content, nor the normativity, of the common morality. Because these content and normativity claims form the backbone of their approach, both claims deserve substantive support if the project of Principles is to be completed. Defense of the normativity claim remains an issue that has to date gone underdeveloped in the literature. Here I evaluate three ways of mounting such a defense, arguing that only one-conceptual analysis demonstrating the principles to be part of the "definitional criteria" of morality-might succeed within the confines of Beauchamp and Childress' metaethical paradigm. I argue further that identification of the common morality with these "definitional criteria" presents a compelling way forward.

Nonegalitarian Social Responsibility for Health: A Confucian Perspective on Article 14 of the UNESCO: Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.

This essay offers a Confucian evaluation of Article 14 of the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, with a focus given to its statement that "the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being." It indicates that "a right to health" contained in the statement is open to two different interpretations, one radically egalitarian, another a decent minimum. It shows that Confucianism has strong moral considerations to reject the radical egalitarian interpretation, and argues that a Confucian nonegalitarian health distribution ethics of differentiated and graded love and obligation can reasonably be supported with a right to the decent minimum of health at the international level.

Social Change: Toward an Informed and Critical Understanding of Social Justice and the Capabilities Approach in Community Psychology.

Community psychology has long been concerned with social justice. However, deployments of this term are often vague and undertheorized. To address this weakness in the field's knowledge body we explored John Rawls's theory of social justice and Amartya Sen's economic theory of the capabilities approach and evaluated each for its applicability to community psychology theory, research, and action. Our unpacking of the philosophical and political underpinnings of Rawlsian theory of social justice resulted in identifying characteristics that limit the theory's utility in community psychology, particularly in its implications for action. Our analysis of the capability approach proposed by Amartya Sen revealed a framework that operationalizes social justice in both research and action, and we elaborate on this point. Going beyond benefits to community psychology in adopting the capabilities approach, we posit a bi-directional relationship and discuss how community psychology might also contribute to the capabilities approach. We conclude by suggesting that community psychology could benefit from a manifesto or proclamation that provides a historical background of social justice and critiques the focus on the economic, sociological, and philosophical theories that inform present-day conceptualizations (and lack thereof) of social justice for community psychology.

Prioritizing the Local in an Era of Globalization: A Proposal for Decentering Community Psychology.

In this article, I outline a proposal for decentering the field of United States-based community psychology. Transnational migrations, border crossings, and proliferating neoliberal trade and global media characterize the contemporary moment we live in. These movements challenge any monolithic disciplinary narrative of community psychology. Drawing from liberation psychology and women of Color feminisms, I argue that decentering the field involves engendering more reciprocal, nonhierarchical relations between the core and peripheries of knowledge production. Specifically, I consider the decentering project in two related realms-content and agents of knowledge production. The first issue concerns the kind of research and theorizing we engage in, the issues or topics we investigate, and the subject populations we work with. The second issue pertains to the agents who engage in the aforementioned processes, exercising epistemic power, that is the authority to construct what is considered legitimate and valid knowledge. I conclude with the implications of the decentering project for a multistranded community psychology that is responsive to the cartographies of contemporary struggles.

The transplantation of solid organs from HIV-positive donors to HIV-negative recipients: ethical implications.

HIV-positive individuals have traditionally been barred from donating organs due to transmission concerns, but this barrier may soon be lifted in the USA in limited settings when recipients are also infected with HIV. Recipients of livers and kidneys with well-controlled HIV infection have been shown to have similar outcomes to those without HIV, erasing ethical concerns about poorly chosen beneficiaries of precious organs. But the question of whether HIV-negative patients should be disallowed from receiving an organ from an HIV-positive donor has not been adequately explored. In this essay, we will discuss the background to this scenario and the ethical implications of its adoption from the perspectives of autonomy, beneficence/non-maleficence and justice.

Philosophical feminist bioethics: past, present, and future.

The end of the last century was a particularly vibrant period for feminist bioethics. Almost two decades on, we reflect on the legacy of the feminist critique of bioethics and investigate the extent to which it has been successful and what requires more attention yet. We do this by examining the past, present, and future: we draw out three feminist concerns that emerged in this period-abstraction, individualism, and power-and consider three feminist responses-relationality, particularity, and justice-and we finish with some thoughts about the future.