Global health, planetary health, One Health: conceptual and ethical challenges and concerns.

The Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically shown the level of interconnectedness of the human population, the direct relation between human health and the ecosystem, as well as the enormous ethical challenges required for a global response. Relatedly, society has been directly confronted by issues of 'Global health,' both in terms of awareness of health conditions and health systems resiliency all around the world, as well as in terms of governance of the worldwide response and its implications at national and local levels. While Global health is often used as a cosmetic label for neocolonial approaches, it is really an interdisciplinary approach consisting of the interaction between globalization and the determinants of health. Thus, it involves the ecosystem and its transformation and implies a systemic 'One Health' decolonized approach in the definition of its strategies. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the inequities and the limits of the current hegemonic Global health system governance; calling for ethics to provide a renewed, comprehensive, inclusive, and decolonized conceptualization of Global health.

Tacit social experimentation with digital technologies during the Covid-19 crisis.

In the management of the Covid 19 crisis, digital technologies were used in a major way. This article defends the hypothesis that these technologies took the form of a "tacit social experimentation". This article justifies this concept in three levels. The first part uses this concept to qualify the form of biopolitics that was implemented to manage the crisis. Digital technologies were used to discipline the population and, literally speaking, as instruments of knowledge of the population. Uncertainty forced experts to make preliminary observations and act to produce knowledge. Second, this article shows that the use of digital technologies during the crisis was experimental in a second sense. By promoting telemedicine within a more flexible legal framework, the authorities authorised an experimental use of telemedicine without knowledge or control of its side effects. Finally, the article defends the use of the concept of "tacit social experimentation" for ethical and political purposes. For indeed, understanding the experiments carried out during the crisis begs the question of the involvement of the participants and their democratic steering.

Autonomy-based bioethics and vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic: towards an African relational approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provoked new interest in the notion of vulnerability and in identifying alternative approaches for responding to vulnerable patients and populations during health emergencies. In this paper, I argue that the autonomy-based approach (the most dominant approach in bioethics) to responding to vulnerability during health emergencies is deficient because it focuses only on the interests, values, and decisions of the individual patient. It overly emphasizes respect for autonomy and not respect for the patient as it does not consider the patient as a social and relational agent. Indeed, relational approaches to autonomy like the feminist and indigenous sub-Saharan African ethical approaches are promising alternatives. In this essay, I use the indigenous African relational approach to autonomy as an example of an alternative method which can be used to respond to vulnerability during a global health emergency like COVID-19.

Ethical prioritization of critical care resources during COVID-19: perspectives from Italy and the United States.

This article examines some of the ethical challenges of prioritizing intensive care resources during the Covid-19 pandemic by comparing the Italian and United States contexts. After presenting an overview to the clinical, ethical, and public debates in Italy, the article will discuss the development of triage allocation protocols in United States hospitals. Resource allocation criteria underwent increased scrutiny and critique in both countries, which resulted in modified professional and expert guidance regarding healthcare ethics during times of emergency and resource scarcity.

Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the benefits of international data sharing. Data sharing enabled the health care policy makers to make decisions based on real-time data, it enabled the tracking of the virus, and importantly it enabled the development of vaccines that were crucial to mitigating the impact of the virus. This data sharing is not the norm as data sharing needs to navigate complex ethical and legal rules, and in particular, the fragmented application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The introduction of the draft regulation for a European Health Data Space (EHDS) in May 2022 seeks to address some of these legal issues. If passed, it will create an obligation to share electronic health data for certain secondary purposes. While there is a clear need to address the legal complexities involved with data sharing, it is critical that any proposed reforms are in line with ethical principles and the expectations of the data subjects. In this paper we offer a critique of the EHDS and offer some recommendations for this evolving regulatory space.

Estudio exploratorio sobre la situación de los comités de ética frente a emergencias sanitarias y brotes de enfermedades en Latinoaméricay Caribe / Estudi exploratori sobre la situació dels comitès d'ètica davant d'emergències sanitàries i brots de malalties a Llatinoamèrica i Carib / Ethics committee’ssituation facing health emergencies and disease outbreaks, an exploratory study in LatinAmericaand the Caribbean

Se realizó un estudio exploratorio a través de una encuesta a Comités de Ética en países de América Latina y el Caribede habla hispana, con el fin de relevar su situación frente a emergencias sanitarias y consultar los dilemas éticos enfrentados en las investigaciones para COVID-19. Se obtuvieron respuestas de 106 comités, pertenecientes a 14 países.Solamente el 24% respondió que existía una red de comunicación eficiente y efectiva entre comités, previa a la pandemia. El 45% respondió queno existían en su región comités específicos para evaluar proyectos vinculados a emergencias sanitarias con anterioridad a la pandemia. El porcentaje de CEI que disponía de procedimientos previos para evaluar investigaciones en situaciones de emergencias sanitarias, fue sólo de 7%, si bien el 52% estaba en proceso de elaboración a raíz de la pandemia.El porcentaje de CEI que consideró razonable un tiempo inferior a 5 días para la evaluación de proyectos de investigación, varió en virtud del diseño: 32% para los estudios observacionales y 12% para los ensayos clínicos con drogas o con vacunas.Los tres problemas éticos principales identificados en los estudios para COVID estuvieron relacionados con el consentimiento informado, los aspectos metodológicos y la poca información previa o falta de evidencia para los productos de investigación.Consideramos que debemos reformular la manera de pensar los problemas éticos de las emergencias hacia un abordaje global, con un enfoque preventivo, donde las redes de colaboración entre los CEI deberían convertirse en regla.(AU)

Es va realitzar un estudi exploratori a través d'una enquesta a Comitès d'Ètica a països d'Amèrica Llatina i el Carib de parla hispana, per rellevar la seva situació davant d'emergències sanitàries i consultar els dilemes ètics enfrontats a les investigacions per a COVID-19. S'obtingueren respostes de 106 comitès, pertanyents a 14 països. Només el 24% va respondre que existia una xarxa de comunicació eficient i efectiva entre comitès, prèvia a la pandèmia. El 45% va respondre que no existien a la seva regió comitès específics per avaluar projectes vinculats a emergències sanitàries amb anterioritat a la pandèmia. El percentatge de CEI que disposava de procediments previs per avaluar investigacions en situacions d'emergències sanitàries va ser només de 7%, si bé el 52% estava en procés d'elaboració arran de la pandèmia. El percentatge de CEI que va considerar raonable un temps inferior a 5 dies per a l'avaluació de projectes de recerca va variar en virtut del disseny: 32% per als estudis observacionals i 12% per als assaigs clínics ambdrogues o amb vacunes.Els tres problemes ètics principals identificats als estudis per a COVID van estar relacionats amb el consentiment informat, els aspectes metodològics i la poca informació prèvia o manca d'evidència per als productes de recerca. Considerem que cal reformular la manera de pensar els problemes ètics de les emergències cap a un abordatge global, amb un enfocament preventiu, on les xarxes de col·laboració entre els CEI haurien de convertir-se en regla.(AU)

An exploratory study was carried out through a survey of Ethics Committees in Spanish-speaking Latin American and Caribbean countries, to assess their situation in the face of health emergencies and consult the ethical dilemmas faced in research for COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 106 committees, belonging to 14 countries.Only 24% responded that there was an efficient and effective communication network between committees, before the pandemic. 45% responded that there were no specific committees in their regions to evaluate projects linked to health emergencies before the pandemic. The percentage of RECs that had prior procedures to evaluate research in health emergencies was only 7%, although 52% were in the process of being prepared as a result of the pandemic.The percentage of RECs that reasonably expected less than 5 days to evaluate research projects varied by design: 32% for observational studies and 12% for clinical drug or vaccine trials.The three main ethical problems identified in the studies for COVID were related to informed consent, methodological aspects, and little prior information or lack of evidence for investigational products.We believe that we must reformulate the way of thinking about the ethical problems of emergencies towards a global approach, with a preventive approach, where collaboration networks between the RECs will not become the rule.(AU)

Herd Immunity: History, Concepts, and Ethical Rationale.

Public health emergencies are fraught by epistemic uncertainty, which raises policy issues of how to handle that uncertainty and devise sustainable public health responses. Among such responses, a herd immunity policy might be an option. Particularly before the development of vaccines, the current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the polarized nature of the political debate concerning the ethical feasibility of herd immunity strategies. This article provides a conceptual framework tailored to uncover the ethical rationale behind such strategies. Clarity on this issue is important in order to facilitate the terms of the political debate when tackling future health emergencies.

Exploring the Ethics of a Nurses' Strike During a Pandemic.

ABSTRACT: It's usually considered a violation of professional ethics for health care workers, including nurses, to refuse to work during mass medical emergencies, especially if their refusal is over concerns like compensation. Strikes and other forms of work stoppage may result in harm to patients and, therefore, violate professional obligations of beneficence. However, in rare circumstances a health care worker's choice to remain on the job despite risk or potential harm to themselves or even their family may be considered beyond their professional obligation. During a pandemic such as COVID-19, the ethical calculus (that is, finding the right balance between beneficence and harm before deciding on a course of action) must take account of a confluence of factors, including the risks to present patients, future patients, and health care workers; the severity and duration of the risks; and the availability of ameliorative or protective steps that reduce risk and harm. The principle of beneficence to both future patients and health care workers may be thwarted if the risk analysis is confined only to short-term concerns (that is, to concerns occurring within a narrow temporal window). If a significantly elevated risk has been demonstrated to affect nurses and other health care workers of color disproportionately, racial justice must also be considered. The purpose of this article is to assess the moral framework of a work stoppage by nurses during a pandemic.

Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic.

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims.

Public health ethics and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Health is a human right anchored in values as a basic necessity of life. It promotes the well-being of persons, communities, economic prosperity, and national development. The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caught the world unaware and unprepared. It presented a huge challenge to the health and economic systems of every country. Across the spectrum of human endeavor and liberty, several ethical questions have been raised with regard to its management, particularly the public health control measures. Decisions for pandemic control measures are made under difficult circumstances driven by urgency and panic, with uncertainties and complexities for public goods over individual rights. Global solidarity in controlling the pandemic is being tested. National governments have the responsibility to protect public health on the grounds of common good. Political considerations should not be the basis for decision-making against the best available epidemiological data from pandemic disease dynamics. Hence, the need to adhere to the values of honesty, trust, human dignity, solidarity, reciprocity, accountability, transparency, and justice are major considerations. A literature search was conducted for the publications from academic databases and websites of health-relevant organizations. I discuss the ethical questions and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of public health control measures using the standard ethical principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and social (distributive) justice. It is observed that, at the country level, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines are used to control the pandemic. As WHO through the COVAX strategy distributes the vaccines to less developed countries, a lot still needs to be done to address the complex bottlenecks of allocation and distribution. There is a need to ensure acceptable and transparent system that promotes cooperation, equitable access, and fair distribution of vaccines on a global scale.

Résumé La santé est un droit humain ancré dans des valeurs en tant que nécessité fondamentale de la vie. Elle favorise le bien-être des personnes, des collectivités, la prospérité économique et le développement national. La pandémie de COVID-19 a pris le monde au dépourvu et au dépourvu. Cela représente un énorme défi pour les systèmes de santé et économiques de chaque pays. Dans tout le spectre de l'activité humaine et de la liberté, plusieurs questions éthiques ont été soulevées concernant sa gestion, en particulier les mesures de contrôle de la santé publique. Les décisions concernant les mesures de lutte contre la pandémie sont prises dans des circonstances difficiles motivées par l'urgence et la panique, avec des incertitudes et des complexités pour les biens publics plutôt que les droits individuels. La solidarité mondiale dans la lutte contre la pandémie est mise à l'épreuve. Les gouvernements nationaux ont la responsabilité de protéger la santé publique au nom du bien commun. Les considérations politiques ne devraient pas être la base de la prise de décision par rapport aux meilleures données épidémiologiques disponibles sur la dynamique des maladies pandémiques. Ainsi, la nécessité d'adhérer aux valeurs d'honnêteté, de confiance, de dignité humaine, de solidarité, de réciprocité, de responsabilité, de transparence et de justice sont des considérations majeures. Une recherche documentaire a été menée pour les publications des bases de données universitaires et des sites Web d'organisations liées à la santé. Je discute des questions éthiques et des défis de la pandémie de COVID-19 dans le contexte des mesures de contrôle de la santé publique en utilisant les principes éthiques standard de respect de l'autonomie, de la bienfaisance, de la non-malfaisance et de la justice sociale (distributive). On constate qu'au niveau des pays, les directives de l'OMS sont utilisées pour contrôler la pandémie. Alors que l'OMS, via la stratégie COVAX, distribue les vaccins aux pays moins développés, il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour remédier aux goulots d'étranglement complexes de l'allocation et de la distribution. Il est nécessaire de garantir un système acceptable et transparent qui favorise la coopération, l'accès équitable et la distribution équitable des vaccins à l'échelle mondiale. critères d'attribution des vaccins COVID-19 dès qu'ils deviennent disponibles.

¿Es pertinente la vacunación frente a COVID-19 de los niños y adolescentes desde el punto de vista bioético? / Is vaccination against COVID-19 appropriate for children and adolescents, from a bioethical point of view?

Durante la pandemia de COVID-19 hemos vivido en todo el planeta una situación sin precedentes que nos ha exigido tomar decisiones urgentes basadas más en el sentido común que en las evidencias. Lo urgente nos hizo olvidar lo importante, pero, después de la experiencia de año y medio, es momento de analizar con calma lo que hemos aprendido para poder aplicar medidas sanitarias con prudencia y evitar los daños no deseados. No debemos olvidar que somos científicos, porque somos médicos. La ciencia consiste en cuestionar y buscar evidencias firmes donde apoyar decisiones complejas que ofrezcan las mejores opciones a nuestros pacientes. La Bioética debe guiarnos en esta misión, valorando todas las aportaciones y enfoques, sin buscar una verdad absoluta, haciendo un ejercicio de prudencia, reflexión, responsabilidad y auténtica deliberación. En este marco, como pediatras, debemos preguntarnos seriamente si es pertinente la vacunación de los adolescentes y niños, a la vista objetiva de los datos que tenemos (AU)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have experienced an unprecedented situation around the world that has required us to make urgent decisions based more on common sense than on evidence.The urgent made us forget the important, but after the experience of a year and a half, it is time to analyze with serenity what we have learned in order to apply sanitary measures wisely and avoid unwanted damage.We must not forget that we are scientists, because we are doctors. Science consists of questioning and looking for firm evidence to support complex decisions that offer the best options to our patients. Bioethics must guide us in this mission, valuing all contributions and approaches, without seeking an absolute truth, exercising prudence, reflection, responsibility and authentic deliberation.In these circumstances, as pediatricians, we must seriously ask ourselves whether the COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and children is appropriate, objectively taking into account the data we have so far. (AU)

Impact of donors' financial fairness perception on donation intention in nonprofit organizations after COVID-19 outbreak.

Based on the investigation of financial fairness perception and donation intention of individual donors in non-profit organizations (NPOs), this paper uses structural equation model to analyze the impact of individual donors' financial fairness perception on donation intention. The results show that individual donors' perceptions on financial result fairness, financial procedure fairness and financial information fairness all have positive impact on donation intention; among which the perception on financial result fairness only has direct impact on individual donation intention, while the perceptions on financial procedure fairness and financial information fairness have direct and indirect impact on individual donation intention.

Fundamental privacy rights in a pandemic state.

Faced with the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic, and to better understand and contain the disease's spread, health organisations increased the collaboration with other organisations sharing health data with data scientists and researchers. Data analysis assists such organisations in providing information that could help in decision-making processes. For this purpose, both national and regional health authorities provided health data for further processing and analysis. Shared data must comply with existing data protection and privacy regulations. Therefore, a robust de-identification procedure must be used, and a re-identification risk analysis should also be performed. De-identified data embodies state-of-the-art approaches in Data Protection by Design and Default because it requires the protection of direct and indirect identifiers (not just direct). This article highlights the importance of assessing re-identification risk before data disclosure by analysing a data set of individuals infected by Covid-19 that was made available for research purposes. We stress that it is highly important to make this data available for research purposes and that this process should be based on the state of the art methods in Data Protection by Design and by Default. Our main goal is to consider different re-identification risk analysis scenarios since the information on the intruder side is unknown. Our conclusions show that there is a risk of identity disclosure for all of the studied scenarios. For one, in particular, we proceed to an example of a re-identification attack. The outcome of such an attack reveals that it is possible to identify individuals with no much effort.

Is publication ethics becoming a casualty of Covid-19?

Public health emergencies require real-time, accurate information to guide effective and timely responses. This calls for rapid and timely publication of information to promote both its scientific validity and societal value. On the other hand, rapid publication poses a potential threat to the integrity of the information published. Inaccurate or incomplete information arises due to the difficulty in conducting rigorous studies during an ongoing emergency, and the race for the fame and prestige that come with being first. The balance between the potential risks and benefits of rapid publication can be achieved by adhering to the principles of publication ethics that promote the integrity, accuracy and value of scientific literature (1). We highlight ten potential challenges related to scientific publishing and dissemination of information during this pandemic, and the underlying principles of publication ethics that could guide us.