Accelerating ethics, empathy, and equity in geographic information science.

Science has traditionally been driven by curiosity and followed one goal: the pursuit of truth and the advancement of knowledge. Recently, ethics, empathy, and equity, which we term "the 3Es," are emerging as new drivers of research and disrupting established practices. Drawing on our own field of GIScience (geographic information science), our goal is to use the geographic approach to accelerate the response to the 3Es by identifying priority issues and research needs that, if addressed, will advance ethical, empathic, and equitable GIScience. We also aim to stimulate similar responses in other disciplines. Organized around the 3Es we discuss ethical issues arising from locational privacy and cartographic integrity, how our ability to build knowledge that will lead to empathy can be curbed by data that lack representativeness and by inadvertent inferential error, and how GIScientists can lead toward equity by supporting social justice efforts and democratizing access to spatial science and its tools. We conclude with a call to action and invite all scientists to join in a fundamentally different science that responds to the 3Es and mobilizes for change by engaging in humility, broadening measures of excellences and success, diversifying our networks, and creating pathways to inclusive education. Science united around the 3Es is the right response to this unique moment where society and the planet are facing a vast array of challenges that require knowledge, truth, and action.

Providing ethics advice in a pandemic, in theory and in practice: A taxonomy of ethics advice.

The pandemic significantly raised the stakes for the translation of bioethics insights into policy. The novelty, range and sheer quantity of the ethical problems that needed to be addressed urgently within public policy were unprecedented and required high-bandwidth two-way transfer of insights between academic bioethics and policy. Countries such as the United Kingdom, which do not have a National Ethics Committee, faced particular challenges in how to facilitate this. This paper takes as a case study the brief career of the Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) for the NHS Covid-19 App, which shows both the difficulty and the political complexity of policy-relevant bioethics in a pandemic and how this was exacerbated by the transience and informality of the structures through which ethics advice was delivered. It analyses how and why, after EAB's demise, the Westminster government increasingly sought to either take its ethics advice in private or to evade ethical scrutiny of its policies altogether. In reflecting on EAB, and these later ethics advice contexts, the article provides a novel framework for analysing ethics advice within democracies, defining four idealised stances: the pure ethicist, the advocate, the ethics arbiter and the critical friend.

Germline genome modification through novel political, ethical, and social lenses.

Much has been written about gene modifying technologies (GMTs), with a particularly strong focus on human germline genome editing (HGGE) sparked by its unprecedented clinical research application in 2018, shocking the scientific community. This paper applies political, ethical, and social lenses to aspects of HGGE to uncover previously underexplored considerations that are important to reflect on in global discussions. By exploring 4 areas-(1) just distribution of HGGE benefits through a realist lens; (2) HGGE through a national interest lens; (3) "broad societal consensus" through a structural injustice lens; and (4) HGGE through a scientific trustworthiness lens-a broader perspective is offered, which ultimately aims to enrich further debates and inform well-considered solutions for developments in this field. The application of these lenses also brings to light the fact that all discussions about scientific developments involve a conscious or unconscious application of a lens that shapes the direction of our thinking.

Disaster solidarity and survivor ethics: a case study of Hurricane María in Puerto Rico.

Liminal periods of disaster solidarity in the aftermath of disaster are a common experience of many survivors. These periods have a specifically ethical component in that people spontaneously engage in collective, altruistic action and magnanimously expand their ethical focus beyond normative social distinctions and hierarchies. Inevitably, however, such solidarity seems to wane, and people return to pre-disaster patterns of interaction. Nevertheless, some individuals move beyond opportune acts of assistance to more extensive reorganisations of their lives during the recovery period and reshape their ethical commitments in new and durable directions. These individuals help make visible marginalised 'others' and draw collaborators to share new ethical visions. Based on observational and interview data collected after Hurricane María (2017) in a mountainous Puerto Rican municipality and employing the framework of virtue ethics, this paper examines the differential effects of disaster solidarity on survivors' ethical responses and the different contributions these make to society.

The Ethics of Population Policy for the Two Worlds of Population Conditions.

Population policy has taken two divergent trajectories. In the developing part of the world, controlling population growth has been a major tune of the debate more than a half-century ago. In the more developed part of the world, an inverse pattern results in the discussion over the facilitation of population growth. The ethical debates on population policy have primarily focused on the former and ignored the latter. This paper proposes a more comprehensive account that justifies states' population policy interventions. We first consider the reasons that support pro-natalist policies to enhance fertility rates and argue that these policies are ethically problematic. We then establish an ethics of population policy grounded on account of self-sustaining the body politic, which consists of four criteria: survival, replacement, accountability, and solidarity. We discuss the implications of this account regarding birth-control and pro-natalist policies, as well as non-procreative policies such as immigration, adoption, and unintended baby-saving strategies.

Environmental ethics beyond conferences: A response to the WCB bioethics in Qatar.

Rieke van der Graaf, Karin Jongsma, Martine de Vries, Suzanne van de Vathorst, and Ineke Bolt have done well to voice ethical concerns over the decision of the IAB to host the next WCB in Qatar. Conferences should be more sustainable. Yet, attention to the carbon impact of conferences-and, perhaps, any country that a person might travel to for business or pleasure-are only one small part of environmentally responsible citizenship, especially for those trained in ethics and committed to health. Both bioethics as a discipline and bioethicists as individuals need to interrogate their environmental choices. To this end, some ecological choices are more obvious targets of ethical scrutiny-diet and travel-while others appear sacrosanct, like reproduction and even healthcare use. This underscores the importance of making sustainable and ethical organizational choices, such as where to hold a conference, without absolving environmental accountability in other ethical calculations. Many organizations in academic and clinical medicine need to make drastic alterations in their practices and policies to effectively mitigate carbon. While the burden is not only on bioethics alone, the expectation that it should be remains.

The ethics of ethics conferences: Is Qatar a desirable location for a bioethics conference?

The next World Congress of Bioethics will be held in Doha, Qatar. Although this location provides opportunities to interact with a more culturally diverse audience, to advance dialogue between cultures and religions, offer opportunities for mutual learning, there are also huge moral concerns. Qatar is known for violations of human rights - including the treatment of migrant workers and the rights of women - corruption, criminalization of LGBTQI+ persons, and climate impact. Since these concerns are also key (bio)ethical concern we call for a broad debate within the bioethics community whether organizing and attending the World Congress in Qatar is ethically problematic and how ethical concerns should be dealt with.

The ethics of bioethics conferencing in Qatar.

In 2022, the International Association of Bioethics (IAB) announced that the 17th World Congress of Bioethics would be held in Doha, Qatar. In response to ethical concerns expressed about the Qatar selection, the IAB Board of Directors developed and posted to the IAB website a response using a Q&A format. In this Letter, we (the IAB President and Vice President) address concerns about the ethics of bioethics conferencing raised in a 2023 Letter to the Editor of Bioethics by Van der Graaf et al. We do not represent the Board of Directors, and this Letter expresses solely our own views.

Nursing ethics as a distinct entity within bioethics: Implications for clinical ethics practice.

The question of whether nursing ethics is a distinct entity within bioethics is an important and thought-provoking one. Though fundamental bioethical principles are appreciated and applied within the practice of nursing ethics, there exist distinct considerations which make nursing ethics a unique subfield of bioethics. In this article, we focus on the importance of relationships as a distinguishing feature of the foundation of nursing ethics, evidenced in its education, practice, and science. Next, we consider two objections to our claim of distinctiveness: first, that nursing ethics is merely an application of bioethical principles; second, that many bioethical subfields emphasize relationships. We respond by highlighting that throughout nursing education and generally in every career path that follows, the creation and nurturing of relationships is emphasized. Compassion and respect for the dignity of every patient is the framework upon which these therapeutic relationships are built. Much of the focus of nursing science rests on creating meaningful interpersonal experiences and human connection. After responding to each objection, we turn to the implications of this distinctiveness on clinical ethics practice, arguing that the strengths of our approach outweigh the limitations. The deep emphasis on creating meaningful interpersonal experiences and human connection supports a greater integration of relationships and social contexts into the evaluation of whether an action is ethically permissible, which is an important benefit in addressing the challenging human situations that patients face. Moreover, this perspective allows nurse ethicists to account for diverse and complex social structures and their influence in making ethical determinations. These strengths outweigh the limitations of potential inconsistencies between nurse and non-nurse clinical ethicists on the same service, a result we attribute to nursing ethics-and, in turn, the practice of the nurse ethicist-being framed by relationships to a larger extent than other bioethical subfields.

The Ethics of Human Challenge Trials Using Emerging Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 Variants.

The world's first coronavirus disease 2019 human challenge trial using the D614G strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is underway in the United Kingdom. The Wellcome Trust is funding challenge stock preparation of the Beta and Delta variant for a follow-up human challenge trial, and researchers at hVIVO are considering conducting these trials. However, little has been written thus far about the ethical justifiability of human challenge trials with SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. We explore 2 specific characteristics of some variants that may initially be thought to make such trials unethical and conclude that SARS-CoV-2 variant challenge trials can remain ethical.

The Ethics Laboratory: A Dialogical Practice for Interdisciplinary Moral Deliberation.

Recent advancements in therapeutic and diagnostic medicine, along with the creation of large biobanks and methods for monitoring health technologies, have improved the prospects for preventing, treating, and curing illness. These same advancements, however, give rise to a plethora of ethical questions concerning good decision-making and best action. These ethical questions engage policymakers, practitioners, scientists, and researchers from a variety of fields in different ways. Collaborations between professionals in the medical and health sciences and the social sciences and humanities often take an asymmetrical form, as when social scientists use ethnographic approaches to study the moral issues and practices of physicians. The ethics laboratory described in this article is a cross-sectoral and inter-disciplinary forum for collaborative investigation on important moral topics. It offers an experimental way of unpacking implied assumptions, underlying values, and comparable notions from different professional healthcare fields. The aim of this article is to present the ethics laboratory's methodology. The article offers a model and a hermeneutical framework that rests on a dialogical approach to ethical questions. The model and the framework derive from a Danish research project, Personalized Medicine in the Welfare State. This article uses personalized medicine as a point of reference, though it offers an argument for the applicability of the model more broadly.

Primary Care Ethics is Just Medical Ethics: A Philosophical Argument for the Feasibility of Transitioning Acute Care Ethics to the Primary Care Setting.

Whether practiced by ethics committees or clinical ethicists, medical ethics enjoys a solid foundation in acute care hospitals. However, medical ethics fails to have a strong presence in the primary care setting. Recently, some ethicists have argued that the reason for this disparity between ethics in the acute and primary care setting is that primary care ethics is distinct from acute care ethics: the failure to translate ethics to the primary care setting stems from the incorrect belief that acute care ethics can be applied to the primary care setting. In this paper, I argue that primary care ethics and acute care ethics are species of the same ethical genus, and that the ethical differences are not ones of kind but of circumstance. I do this by appealing to the role obligations that underlie acute care and primary care clinicians' medical ethical obligations and the shared institutions that ground those obligations.

The ethics of semantics in medicine.

In this paper, we discuss the largely neglected topic of semantics in medicine and the associated ethical issues. We analyse several key medical terms from the informed perspective of the healthcare professional, the lay perspective of the patient and the patient's family, and the descriptive perspective of what the term actually signifies objectively. The choice of a particular medical term may deliver different meanings when viewed from these differing perspectives. Consequently, several ethical issues may arise. Technical terms that are not commonly understood by lay people may be used by physicians, consciously or not, and may obscure the understanding of the situation by lay people. The choice of particular medical terms may be accidental use of jargon, an attempt to ease the communication of psychologically difficult information, or an attempt to justify a preferred course of action and/or to manipulate the decision-making process.

Costa, cancer and coronavirus: contractualism as a guide to the ethics of lockdown.

Lockdown measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic involve placing huge burdens on some members of society for the sake of benefiting other members of society. How should we decide when these policies are permissible? Many writers propose we should address this question using cost-benefit analysis (CBA), a broadly consequentialist approach. We argue for an alternative non-consequentialist approach, grounded in contractualist moral theorising. The first section sets up key issues in the ethics of lockdown, and sketches the apparent appeal of addressing these problems in a CBA frame. The second section argues that CBA fundamentally distorts the normative landscape in two ways: first, in principle, it allows very many morally trivial preferences-say, for a coffee-might outweigh morally weighty life-and-death concerns; second, it is insensitive to the core moral distinction between victims and vectors of disease. The third section sketches our non-consequentialist alternative, grounded in Thomas Scanlon's contractualist moral theory. On this account, the ethics of self-defence implies a strong default presumption in favour of a highly restrictive, universal lockdown policy: we then ask whether there are alternatives to such a policy which are justifiable to all affected parties, paying particular attention to the complaints of those most burdened by policy. In the fourth section, we defend our contractualist approach against the charge that it is impractical or counterintuitive, noting that actual CBAs face similar, or worse, challenges.

Educational interventions and animal consumption: Results from lab and field studies.

Currently, there are many advocacy interventions aimed at reducing animal consumption. We report results from a lab (N = 267) and a field experiment (N = 208) exploring whether, and to what extent, some of those educational interventions are effective at shifting attitudes and behavior related to animal consumption. In the lab experiment, participants were randomly assigned to read a philosophical ethics paper, watch an animal advocacy video, read an advocacy pamphlet, or watch a control video. In the field experiment, we measured the impact of college classes with animal ethics content versus college classes without animal ethics content. Using a pretest, post-test matched control group design, humane educational interventions generally made people more knowledgeable about animals used as food and reduced justifications and speciesist attitudes supporting animal consumption. None of the interventions in either experiment had a direct, measurable impact on self-reported animal consumption. These results suggest that while some educational interventions can change beliefs and attitudes about animal consumption, those same interventions have small impacts on animal consumption.

The Ethics of Access: Reframing the Need for Abortion Care as a Health Disparity.

The majority of U.S. abortion patients are poor women, and Black and Hispanic women. Therefore, this article encourages bioethicists and equity advocates to consider whether the need for abortion care should be considered a health disparity, and if yes, whether framing it this way would increase the ability of poor women and women of color to get the medical care they need. In order to engage with these critical questions, bioethicists must avoid abortion exceptionalism and respect patients as moral agents. Centering the conscience of pregnant people shifts our analysis away from the ethics of the act of abortion, and toward the ethics of access to abortion care. Because the Supreme Court is on the brink of shifting the question of abortion's legality to state legislatures, this is the moment for all bioethicists to clarify and strengthen their thinking, writing, and teaching in abortion ethics.

Solidarity and the ethics of exposing others to risk in medical research.

The ethical justifiability of the invitation of others to participate in research and their deliberate exposure to risks of harm is not a common topic in bioethics. If, however, some offers ought not to be made and the corresponding actions ought not to be facilitated, invitations to, and the conduct of, a medical study involving humans needs justification. This paper addresses this issue by linking the search for medical knowledge with solidarity. The argument begins with the observation that scientific research is aimed at general knowledge, which is a necessary condition of the social value of research. The applicability of this knowledge to many makes it potentially a public good; that is, a good that is available freely to all. For knowledge to be a public good, a social decision to make it freely available to all needs to be made. It is proposed that this decision be grounded in society's, and so in both researchers' and potential research participants', commitment to solidarity and its obligations of provision, sharing, support, and loyalty. These obligations imply, among other things, an imperfect obligation to participate in research and the corresponding entitlement of the investigators to invite others to participate in research, and so to expose them to its risks during implementation. This entitlement is exercised in an environment shaped by the standards and protections of research ethics and the relevant institutional arrangements.

The many metaphysical commitments of secular clinical ethics: Expanding the argument for a moral-metaphysical proceduralism.

The rich moral diversity of academic bioethics poses a paradox for the practice of giving moral recommendations in secular clinical ethics: How are ethicists to provide moral guidance in a pluralistic society? The field has responded to this challenge with a "procedural approach," but defining this term stirs debate. Some have championed a contentless proceduralism, where ethicists work only to help negotiate resolutions among stakeholders without making any moral recommendations. Others have defended a moral proceduralism by claiming that ethicists should make moral recommendations that are grounded in bioethical consensus (e.g., relevant law, policy, professional consensus statements, and bioethics literature), which is secured using moral principles such as respect for persons or justice. In contrast, we develop a moral-metaphysical proceduralism by identifying many metaphysical commitments in points of secular bioethical consensus. The moral-metaphysical view of secular clinical ethics is important because it challenges the discipline to accept the substantive philosophical foundations required to support giving moral recommendations in a pluralistic context, which may lead to further insights about the nature of the field.

Ethical issues and dilemmas in spinal cord injury rehabilitation in the developing world: a mixed-method study.

STUDY DESIGN: Mixed-method study (small group discussions and online literature search). OBJECTIVES: Identify the ethical issues and dilemmas faced by rehabilitation professionals involved in the service delivery to the persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) in the low income and lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC) located in Asia. SETTING: Small group discussions in three biomedical conferences in Dhaka, Bangladesh and Kualalampur, Malaysia. METHODS: Three small group discussions (30-45 min each) were held during three international conferences in 2019. The conferences brought together experts in the fields of neurology, rehabilitation, neurorehabilitation, and bioethics. A summary of SCI practice points and dilemmas were documented including goals of care, duties of rehabilitation professionals, health care worker-patient relationships, roles, and expectations of family members at different care settings. RESULTS: There is a paucity of literature on this topic. The application of the principles of contemporary bioethics in the pluralistic societies of LIC/LMIC can be challenging. The ethical dilemmas faced by rehabilitation professionals working in LIC/LMIC are diverse and different from those reported from the Western and developed countries. Ethical issues and dilemmas identified were understanding patient autonomy in decision making, lack of insurance for SCI rehabilitation, financial challenges, challenges of providing emerging technology in SCI rehabilitation and SCI rehabilitation during disasters. CONCLUSIONS: We have summarized the possible ethical issues and dilemmas which rehabilitation professionals in LIC/LMIC may encounter during delivery of SCI rehabilitation services. We hope it generates a discussion on an often-neglected aspect of SCI care in the LIC/LMIC and helps identify the complexities of ethical dilemmas unique to persons with SCI living in a developing country.