Equitable global allocation of monkeypox vaccines.

With the world grappling with continued spread of monkeypox internationally, vaccines play a crucial role in mitigating the harms from infection and preventing spread. However, countries with the greatest need - particularly historically endemic countries with the highest monkeypox case-fatality rates - are not able to acquire scarce vaccines. This is unjust, and requires rectification through equitable allocation of vaccines globally. We propose applying the Fair Priority Model for such allocation, which emphasizes three key principles: 1) preventing harm; 2) prioritizing the disadvantaged; and 3) treating people with equal moral concern. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEPV) has the most potential to mitigate harm, and so ensuring countries have sufficient supply for PEPV should be the first priority. And historically endemic countries, which face disadvantages that compound potential harms from monkeypox, should be the first recipients of such vaccines. Once sufficient supply is allocated for countries to apply PEPV, global allocation could move on to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), again prioritizing historically endemic countries first before distribution to the rest of the global community, based on projected number of cases and vulnerability to harm.

Fair domestic allocation of monkeypox virus countermeasures.

Countermeasures for mpox (formerly known as monkeypox), primarily vaccines, have been in limited supply in many countries during outbreaks. Equitable allocation of scarce resources during public health emergencies is a complex challenge. Identifying the objectives and core values for the allocation of mpox countermeasures, using those values to provide guidance for priority groups and prioritisation tiers, and optimising allocation implementation are important. The fundamental values for the allocation of mpox countermeasures are: preventing death and illness; reducing the association between death or illness and unjust disparities; prioritising those who prevent harm or mitigate disparities; recognising contributions to combating an outbreak; and treating similar individuals similarly. Ethically and equitably marshalling available countermeasures requires articulating these fundamental objectives, identifying priority tiers, and recognising trade-offs between prioritising the people at the highest risk of infection and the people at the highest risk of harm if infected. These five values can provide guidance on preferable priority categories for a more ethically sound response and suggest methods for optimising allocation of countermeasures for mpox and other diseases for which countermeasures are in short supply. Properly marshalling available countermeasures will be crucial for future effective and equitable national responses to outbreaks.

Can the Research Team-Participant Relationship Ground Ancillary-Care Obligations?

Discussion of medical researcher teams' ancillary-care obligations has long been dominated by partial-entrustment theory, developed in 2004 by the author of this article, in collaboration with Leah Belsky. Critics of the limited scope of the special ancillary-care obligations defended by that theory, however, argue that a better theory would take fuller account of the relationship that develops between individual research participants and members of the research team. Nate W. Olson and Thaddeus Metz have each put forward well worked-out versions of such a relationship-based account of ancillary-care obligations. This article critically evaluates these accounts, concluding that while each of them is vulnerable to various criticisms, each also crucially facilitates understanding of this relationship: Olson brings out well how research participants can find that role not just beneficial but also deeply meaningful, and Metz, drawing on African ethical traditions, emphasizes that when things go well, participants are involved as partners in the research effort. Yet the article closes by arguing that the partial-entrustment theory, surprisingly, can take on board each of these lessons. As so enhanced, it may actually be the best available relationship-based theory of this subject.

INTELLIGENCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.

Current thinking about the methodology of health technology assessment (HTA) seems to be dominated by two fundamental tensions: [1] between maintaining a tight focus on quality-adjusted life-years and broadening its concern out to pay attention to a broader range of factors, and [2] between thinking of the evaluative dimensions that matter as being objectively important factors or as ones that are ultimately of merely subjective importance. In this study, I will argue that health is a tremendously important all-purpose means to enjoying basic human capabilities, but a mere means, and not an end. The ends to which health is a means are manifold, requiring all those engaged in policy making to exercise intelligence in a continuing effort to identify them and to think through how they interrelate. Retreating to the subjective here would be at odds with the basic idea of HTA, which is to focus on certain objectively describable dimensions of what matters about health and to collect empirical evidence rigorously bearing on what produces improvements along those dimensions. To proceed intelligently in doing HTA, it is important to stay open to reframing and refashioning the ends we take to apply to that arena. The only way for that to happen, as an exercise of public, democratic policy making, is for the difficult value questions that arise when ends clash not to be buried in subjective preference information, but to be front-and-center in the analysis.

Capabilities and the Definition of Health: Comments on Venkatapuram.

Sridhar Venkatapuram's Health Justice argues that health is a 'metacapability' - specifically, as the metacapability of having the ten 'central human capabilities' described by Martha Nussbaum. This cannot be right, as it provides no basis for distinguishing health from education, riches, or love. An amendment correcting this problem is suggested, namely that health is the involuntary, bodily aspect of the metacapability for the central capabilities. This amendment is defended against the objection that it fails to capture some important aspects of mental health.

Relying on experts as we reason together.

In various contexts, it is thought to be important that we reason together. For instance, an attractive conception of democracy requires that citizens reach lawmaking decisions by reasoning with one another. Reasoning requires that reasoners survey the considerations that they take to be reasons, proceed by a coherent train of thought, and reach conclusions freely. De facto reliance on experts threatens the possibility of collective reasoning by making some reasons collectively unsurveyable, raising questions about the coherence of the resulting train of thought. De jure reliance on experts threatens the possibility of collective reasoning by seeming to make some conclusions irreversible. The paper argues that collective reasoning that relies on experts would nonetheless be possible if the unsurveyable reasons "mesh," if the expert considerations are at least in principle publicly recoverable, and if de jure authority of expert decision is always subject to appeal.

Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets.

Biobanks and archived data sets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings and individual research results of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using "biobank" here to refer both to collections of samples and collections of data). This article reports recommendations from a 2-year project funded by the National Institutes of Health. We analyze the responsibilities involved in managing the return of incidental findings and individual research results in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). We suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When reidentification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and the roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) reidentify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. We suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. This article specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks as well as those already in existence.

Secondary researchers' duties to return incidental findings and individual research results: a partial-entrustment account.

Existing attempts to explain why secondary researchers might have any obligation to return findings to the contributors of genetic samples falter because of the lack of any direct interaction between the secondary researchers and the contributors. The partial-entrustment account of these obligations defended here circumvents this problem by explaining how a chain of special responsibilities can be forged even in the absence of any direct interaction.Genet Med 2012:14(4):467-472.

Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations.

Recent work on incidental findings, concentrating on the difficult problems posed by the ambiguous results often generated by high-tech medicine, has proceeded largely independently from recent work on medical researchers' ancillary-care obligations, the obligations that researchers have to deal with diseases or conditions besides the one(s) under study. This paper contends that the two topics are morally linked, and specifically that a sound understanding of ancillary-care obligations will center them on incidental findings. The paper sets out and defends an understanding of ancillary-care obligations, which is based on the idea that when participants signed up for a study they may -- independently of their beliefs and expectations and of those of the researchers -- be taken to have partially entrusted certain aspects of their health into the researchers' hands. This partial entrustment model of ancillary-care obligations, in turn, has substantive implications for how to deal ethically with incidental findings; for instance, it suggests that researchers have no moral obligation to hunt for incidental findings.

Gradations of researchers' obligation to provide ancillary care for HIV/AIDS in developing countries.

Three principal factors affect the stringency of medical researchers' obligation to provide antiretroviral treatment to participants in non-HIV/AIDS studies that are conducted in developing countries: (1) the centrality of HIV/AIDS to the study design, (2) the extent of the researcher-participant interaction, and (3) the cost relative to the study budget. I provide a basis for assessing the comparative stringency of the researchers' obligation to provide this type of ancillary care. Practically, given the range of possible responses to study participants' needs, calibrating the researcher's responsibility to provide ancillary care is a useful step in ethical analysis. Theoretically, a gradation of obligation suggests how research ethics committees or institutional review boards can take multiple, potentially conflicting ethical factors into account without undertaking spurious efforts to quantify their importance.