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)

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.

Integrity during pandemic times: The case for flexible adamancy.

The Covid-19 pandemic has dominated people's lives since late 2019, for more than nine months now. Healthcare resources and medicine have been completely consumed by the Covid 19 illness globally. This is a particularly difficult time for health systems because of the onerous responsibility to care for large numbers of sick people, protecting populations from contracting the infection by effective quarantine, isolation, and containment measures. In addition to this burden of work, healthcare providers are also overcome by fear of contracting the infection and transmitting it to their loved ones. It is during such difficult times that the integrity of healthcare providers is challenged. In this paper I will describe some challenges that a healthcare provider in a typical low resource setting faces during this pandemic time, and will propose the idea of "flexible adamancy" to address these challenges to the health system's integrity.

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.

Escenas en la vida de Srinavasa Ramanujan: Endemias, epidemias y pandemias desde una mirada biomédica y crítica / Scenes of Srinavasa Ramanujan’s life: endemics, epidemics and pandemics from a biomedic and a critic point of view

El hombre que conocía el infinito / The man who knew infinity (2015) de Matt Brown, conjuga problemáticas de las que se ocupa este artículo. El filme se centra en la experiencia del matemático indio Srinavasa Ramanujan en Cambridge, donde sufre situaciones de racismo, discriminación, vivienda precaria, malnutrición. Aun así, logra que reconozcan su genio, siendo nombrado Miembro de la Royal Society of London. Durante su estadía, se desencadena la Primera Guerra Mundial y él enferma de tuberculosis. Sobre este contexto, el trabajo apunta a explorar afecciones que atañen a la humanidad toda: endemias, pandemias, guerra, discriminación. Se trata, de algún modo, de fenómenos, que afectan con intensidad a la salud y bienestar de poblaciones enteras. En ese marco, la visión crítica desde las humanidades permite preguntarse, si bien son eventos que afectan a toda una población, en qué sentido lo hacen diferencialmente respecto a ciertos sectores. Así, se considera el hecho de que hay cuerpos más expuestos, con mayor vulnerabilidad y menores condiciones para afrontar sus efectos. La producción de conocimiento científico no es ajena a esta distribución de la precariedad, como muestra el filme, y es preciso hacer foco en enfermedades desatendidas y de la precariedad en pos de generar condiciones sanitarias más igualitarias. (AU)

The selected film, The man who knew infinity (2015), by Matt Brown, addresses issues which are fundamental to this article’s objectives. The film is about Srinivasa Ramanujan’s experience as an Indian mathematician at Trinity College (Cambridge) where he suffers racism, discrimination, poor housing conditions, malnutrition. Even so, he achieves recognition as a genius, and ultimately becomes an academic member of the College. During his stage in Cambridge, World War I begins, and he gets ill with tuberculosis. In this context, this article aims to explore affections that involve humanity as a whole, such as endemics, pandemics, war, discrimination, among others. It phocuses on phenomena that affect intensely entire populations’ health and wellbeing. In this sense, a critical vision given by the humanities can question the senses in which these three notions affect a whole population, and yet affect it in different ways and intensities. Thus, this work underlines the fact that some bodies are more vulnerable, more exposed to precarization, and have less conditions to overcome its effects. Scientific production of knowledge is not an exception to this distribution of precariousness, as the film shows. In this light, it is necessary to refocus on neglected diseases and precariousness diseases, in order to create egalitarian conditions for prevention and medical treatment. (AU)

If fetuses are persons, abortion is a public health crisis.

Pro-life advocates commonly argue that fetuses have the moral status of persons, and an accompanying right to life, a view most pro-choice advocates deny. A difficulty for this pro-life position has been Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy, in which she argues that even if the fetus is a person, abortion is often permissible because a pregnant woman is not obliged to continue to offer her body as life support. Here, we outline the moral theories underlying public health ethics, and examine the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of public health considerations overriding individual rights. We argue that if fetuses are regarded as persons, then abortion is of such prevalence in society that it also constitutes a significant public health crisis. We show that on public health considerations, we are justified in overriding individual rights to bodily autonomy by prohibiting abortion. We conclude that in a society that values public health, abortion can only be tolerated if fetuses are not regarded as persons.

Supervisión ética de estudios de COVID-19

La rápida producción de evidencia en el contexto de la pandemia hace que la supervisión ética de las investigaciones en curso sea más difícil. El Programa Regional de Bioética de la OPS discutirá con expertos de Argentina, Brasil, Chile y Panamá la “Orientación para la supervisión ética de las investigaciones sobre COVID-19 ante la generación de nueva evidencia” y los desafíos de asegurar una supervisión ética adecuada en nuestra región. Lo invitamos a revisar el documento a presentarse en el seminario virtual con traducción simultánea en español e inglés. Para registrarse vaya a este link: https://paho-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_L1WIZiaESou68EalSwsJfg

The Cost of Safety During a Pandemic.

A first-person account of some victims of the virus, the author puts faces and circumstances to the tragedy of the Covid-19 pandemic. Told from a chaplain's point of view, these narratives will take the reader beyond the numbers and ask questions like: What is the cost of keeping families separated at the end of life, and, if patient/family centered care is so central to healthcare these days, why was it immediately discarded? Is potentially saving human lives worth the risk of damaging them beyond repair?

A Journal of the COVID-19 (Plague) Year.

The essays in this special issue of HEC Forum provide reflections that make explicit the implicit anthropology that our current pandemic has brought but which in the medical ethics literature around COVID-19 has to a great extent ignored. Three of the essays are clearly "journalistic" as a literary genre: one by a hospital chaplain, one by a medical student in her pre-clinical years, and one by a fourth-year medical student who reports her experience as she completed her undergraduate clerkships and applied for positions in graduate medical education. Other essays explore the pandemic from historical, sociological, and economic perspectives, particularly how triage policies have been found to be largely blind to structural healthcare disparities, while simultaneously unable to appropriately address those disparities. Central issues that need to be addressed in triage are not just whether a utilitarian response is the most just response, but what exactly is the greatest good for the greatest number? Together, the essays in this special issue of HEC Forum create a call for a more anthropological approach to understanding health and healthcare. The narrow approach of viewing health as resulting primarily from healthcare will continue to hinder advances and perpetuate disparities. Health outcomes result from a complex interaction of various social, economic, cultural, historical, and political factors. Advancing healthcare requires contextualizing the health of populations amongst these factors. The COVID-19 pandemic has made us keenly aware of how interdependent our health as a society can be.