Developing an Ethical Evaluation Framework for Coercive Antimicrobial Stewardship Policies.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been declared one of the top ten global public health threats facing humanity. To address AMR, coercive antimicrobial stewardship policies are being enacted in some settings. These policies, like all in public health, require ethical justification. Here, I introduce a framework for ethically evaluating coercive antimicrobial stewardship policies on the basis of ethical justifications (and their limitations). I consider arguments from effectiveness; duty of easy rescue; tragedy of the commons; responsibility-tracking; the harm principle; paternalism; justice and development; a precautionary approach; and professional duties. I consider how these justifications might form the basis for developing a comprehensive ethical framework, and the need for this to be context-specific and aligned with the priorities, evidence and needs of the particular jurisdictions in which a policy is to be enacted. I demonstrate how the ethical justifications might be used by reference to an example policy of the EU ban on the use of certain human-critical antibiotics for livestock, before concluding with challenges for further development of the framework.

Interventions to address antimicrobial resistance: an ethical analysis of key tensions and how they apply in low- income and middle-income countries.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health and one health problem. Efforts to mitigate the problem of AMR are challenging to implement due to unresolved ethical tensions. We present an in-depth ethical analysis of tensions that might hinder efforts to address AMR. First, there is a tension between access and excess in the current population: addressing lack of access requires facilitating use of antimicrobials for some populations, while addressing excessive use for other populations. Second, there is a tension between personal interests and a wider, shared interest in curbing AMR. These personal interests can be viewed from the perspective of individuals seeking care and healthcare providers whose livelihoods depend on using or selling antimicrobials and who profit from the sales and use of antimicrobials. Third, there is a tension between the interests of current populations and the interests of future generations. Last, there is a tension between addressing immediate health threats such as pandemics, and AMR as a 'silent', chronic threat. For each of these tensions, we apply 'descriptive ethics' methods that draw from existing evidence and our experiences living and working in low-income and middle-income countries to highlight how these ethical tensions apply in such settings.

Stewardship according to context: Justifications for coercive antimicrobial stewardship policies in agriculture and their limitations.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent, global threat to public health. The development and implementation of effective measures to address AMR is vitally important but presents important ethical questions. This is a policy area requiring further sustained attention to ensure that policies proposed in National Action Plans on AMR are ethically acceptable and preferable to alternatives that might be fairer or more effective, for instance. By ethically analysing case studies of coercive actions to address AMR across countries, we can better inform policy in a context-specific manner. In this article, I consider an example of coercive antimicrobial stewardship policy in Canada, namely restrictions on livestock farmers' access to certain antibiotics for animal use without a vet's prescription. I introduce and analyse two ethical arguments that might plausibly justify coercive action in this case: the harm principle and a duty of collective easy rescue. In addition, I consider the factors that might generally limit the application of those ethical concepts, such as challenges in establishing causation or evidencing the scale of the harm to be averted. I also consider specifics of the Canadian context in contrast to the UK and Botswana as example settings, to demonstrate how context-specific factors might mean a coercive policy that is ethically justified in one country is not so in another.

The ethical challenges of diversifying genomic data: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

This article aims to explore the ethical issues arising from attempts to diversify genomic data and include individuals from underserved groups in studies exploring the relationship between genomics and health. We employed a qualitative synthesis design, combining data from three sources: 1) a rapid review of empirical articles published between 2000 and 2022 with a primary or secondary focus on diversifying genomic data, or the inclusion of underserved groups and ethical issues arising from this, 2) an expert workshop and 3) a narrative review. Using these three sources we found that ethical issues are interconnected across structural factors and research practices. Structural issues include failing to engage with the politics of knowledge production, existing inequities, and their effects on how harms and benefits of genomics are distributed. Issues related to research practices include a lack of reflexivity, exploitative dynamics and the failure to prioritise meaningful co-production. Ethical issues arise from both the structure and the practice of research, which can inhibit researcher and participant opportunities to diversify data in an ethical way. Diverse data are not ethical in and of themselves, and without being attentive to the social, historical and political contexts that shape the lives of potential participants, endeavours to diversify genomic data run the risk of worsening existing inequities. Efforts to construct more representative genomic datasets need to develop ethical approaches that are situated within wider attempts to make the enterprise of genomics more equitable.

Pharmacy Student Education Related to Opioids: A Scoping Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: This scoping review explores and assesses the extent of the literature on the current state of opioid-related training and education of student pharmacists and identifies areas for further research to improve the preparedness of future pharmacists in managing care for patients using opioid medications. This review also examines and maps the literature as it relates to the 4 substance misuse educational content areas (legal/ethical issues; screening, treatment, and stigma; pharmacology and toxicology; and psychosocial aspects) recommended by the 2020 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Special Committee on Substance Use and Pharmacy Education. FINDINGS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles reporting opioid-related educational and training initiatives for student pharmacists in the United States through May 2023. A total of 52 articles were included in the review. Nearly 40% of the included studies reported content that addressed all 4 recommended content areas, with only 8 addressing only 1 or 2 content areas. The majority of studies included students in the third year of their pharmacy program, with many reporting interprofessional educational initiatives. Assessments of opioid-related knowledge and attitudes, satisfaction with the activity, and interprofessional attitudes and competencies were reported. SUMMARY: Most of the reported activities addressed at least 3 of the recommended educational content areas. However, relatively few reported sufficient details to support the replication of the activities and there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of these educational initiatives with more vigorous research methodology to determine their potential effectiveness.

For the Good of the Globe: Moral Reasons for States to Mitigate Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.

Actions to prepare for and prevent pandemics are a common topic for bioethical analysis. However, little attention has been paid to global catastrophic biological risks more broadly, including pandemics with artificial origins, the creation of agents for biological warfare, and harmful outcomes of human genome editing. What's more, international policy discussions often focus on economic arguments for state action, ignoring a key potential set of reasons for states to mitigate global catastrophic biological risks: moral reasons. In this paper, I frame the mitigation of such risks as a global public good, and I explore three possible categories of moral reasons that might motivate states to provide this global public good: nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and interstate obligations. Whilst there are strong objections to moral nationalism as a reason for states to act, moral cosmopolitanism may provide a broad reason which is further supplemented for individual states through the elaboration of interstate moral obligations. The obligations I consider are moral leadership, fairness, and reciprocity. Moral reasons for individual states action may more effectively or more appropriately motivate states to mitigate global catastrophic biological risks.