COVID-19 and the vaccine tax: an egalitarian, market-based approach to the global vaccine inequality.

The global inequality in the distribution of vaccines is unjust. As countries scrambled to ensure enough vaccines, the world's poorest were left to fend for themselves, and the generosity meant to mitigate this through COVAX was not sufficiently forthcoming. In light of this, I proposed a vaccine tax, which obligates those willing and able to pay to protect their own population to contribute to protecting those residing in the world's low-income countries. Petrovic has offered an important critique of this proposal, questioning both the fairness and the efficiency of the tax. However, when properly specified, the vaccine tax is not vulnerable to these critiques.

Total lockdown and fairness towards the sufferer: an egalitarian response to Savulescu and Cameron.

Savulescu and Cameron supported selectively locking down the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic on two grounds: first, that preserving total lockdown would entail levelling down and, second, that levelling down is wrong. Their first assumption has been thoroughly addressed, but more can be said about their wider antiegalitarian point that levelling down is simply wrong. Egalitarians are not defenceless against the levelling-down objection. Even though some consider it the most serious challenge to supporters of equality, egalitarianism possesses sound reasons to assert, not only that something valuable is preserved when we level down, but also that preserving it may be, in certain circumstances, preferable to pursuing other fundamental moral goals. Although troublesome from a well-being maximising standpoint, levelling down ensures that healthcare policy reflects a commitment with the idea that people are equal in moral worth. That commitment is important enough to trump certain improvements in individual well-being. In the case of pandemic lockdowns, not all the interests protected by free movement are as fundamental as to pursue them at the cost of equality. Savulescu and Cameron's framework is so reliant on the view that levelling down is wrong that it fails to account for the valuable loss that having the elderly suffer alone represents.

No, pregnancy is not a disease.

Anna Smajdor and Joona Räsänen argue that we have good reason to classify pregnancy as a disease. They discuss five accounts of disease and argue that each account either implies that pregnancy is a disease or if it does not, it faces problems. This strategy allows Smajdor and Räsänen to avoid articulating their own account of disease. Consequently, they cannot establish that pregnancy is a disease, only that plausible accounts of disease suggest this. Some readers will dismiss Smajdor and Räsänen's claims as counterintuitive. By analogy, if a mathematical proof concludes '2+2=5', readers will know-without investigation-that an error occurred. Rather than dismiss Smajdor and Räsänen's work, however, the easiest way to undermine their argument is to describe at least one plausible account of disease that (1) excludes pregnancy and (2) avoids the problems they raise for it. This is our strategy. We focus on dysfunction accounts of disease. After outlining Smajdor and Räsänen's main arguments against dysfunction accounts, we explain why pregnancy is not a disease on these accounts. Next, we defend dysfunction accounts against the three problems that Smajdor and Räsänen raise. If successful, then contra Smajdor and Räsänen, at least one plausible account of disease does not imply that pregnancy is a disease. We suspect that defenders of other accounts can respond similarly. Yet, we note that insofar as dysfunction accounts align with the commonsense intuition that pregnancy is not a disease, this, all else being equal, seems like a point in their favour.

Unjust organ markets and why it is irrelevant that selling a kidney is the best option.

An important argument against prohibiting organ sales is that it removes the best option available to individuals in dire circumstances. However, this line of reasoning fails to recognise that selling a kidney on a regulated market is only the best option in a very narrow comparison, where a regulated organ market is compared with banning organ sales. Once we acknowledge this narrowness, selling a kidney is not the best option. This paves the way for a distributive justice-based critique of the 'best option' argument for organ markets, which illuminates that organ markets should be compared with a broader set of alternatives. If providing the option of selling a kidney is not the best option, but rather the best option we are willing to provide, and one which means that many people will remain in poverty and unjust circumstances, then this reflects poorly on those societies willing to offer only this option and not a better one.

Equitable resource allocation in health emergencies: addressing racial disparities and ethical dilemmas.

This paper explores resource allocation complexities during health emergencies, focusing on pervasive racial disparities, notably affecting black communities. It aims to investigate alternatives to the Most Lives Saved approach, particularly its potential to exacerbate disparities. To analyse resource allocation strategies, the essay reviews the Dual-Principled System proposed by Bruce and Tallman (B+T) in 2021. B+T's proposal critiques previous methods like the Area Deprivation Index and First Come First Serve while seeking to balance equity and utility by adjusting triage scores based on diseases displaying racial disparities. However, the study identifies inherent challenges in subjectivity, complexity and fairness, necessitating a careful examination and potential innovative solutions. The examination of the Dual-Principled System uncovers challenges, leading to the identification of three main issues and potential solutions. Furthermore, to address subjectivity concerns, it is necessary to adopt objective disease selection criteria through data analysis. Moreover, proposed solutions for complexity include real-time data updates, adaptability and regional considerations. Fairness concerns can be mitigated through educational campaigns and a lottery system integrated with triage score adjustments. The study emphasises nuanced resource allocation with objective disease selection, adaptable strategies and educational initiatives, including a lottery system, aligning with fairness, equity and practicality. As healthcare evolves, resource allocation must align with justice, fostering inclusivity and responsiveness for all.

Ectogestation for men: why aren't we talking about it?

Andrea Bidoli argues that ectogestation could be seen as an emancipatory intervention for women. Specifically, she claims that ectogestation would create unique conditions to reevaluate one's reproductive preference, address certain specific negative social implications of gestation and childbirth, and that it is unfair to hold ectogestation to a higher standard than other innovations such as modern contraceptives and non-medical egg freezing. In this commentary, I claim that Bidoli-like so many others-unjustly bypasses men and their reproductive desires. For a long time, the discussion of the ethics of ectogenesis has focused on women and their reproductive liberation. However, since in many countries, an increasing number of men in reproductive age face difficulties in finding a partner and lack access to other forms of assisted reproduction, it is men who need ectogestation the most.

UK junior doctors' strikes and patients with cancer: a morally questionable association.

Doctors' strikes are legally permissible in the UK, with the situation differing in other countries. But are they morally permissible? Doug McConnell and Darren Mann have systematically attempted to dismiss the arguments for the moral impermissibility of doctors' strikes and creatively attempted to provide further moral justification for them. Unfortunately for striking doctors, they fail to achieve this. Meanwhile, junior doctors' strikes have continued in the UK through 2023 and have now extended into 2024. In this response, which focuses on the UK situation and specifically junior doctors' strikes in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, I will demonstrate a central problem with their arguments-namely that they underplay the harms caused by prolonged doctors' strikes by ignoring the harms to patients with cancer. This weakens their conclusion that strikes are morally permissible in terms of the conditions and thresholds they set. I then provide a psychological critique of their justification for strikes in terms of the interests of the public. It follows that invoking the controversial concept of supererogatory action is ungrounded but also absurd when you consider time-critical cancer care. If those representing striking doctors wish to maintain a modicum of moral respectability, they should mitigate for patients with cancer and negotiate reasonably and with urgency.

Ethics in disaster, mass casualty care, and critical care.

The primary ethical principle guiding general medical practice is autonomy. However, in mass casualty (MASCAL) or disaster scenarios, the principles of beneficence and justice become of foremost concern. Despite multiple reviews, publications, and training courses available to prepare for a MASCAL incident, a minority of physicians and healthcare providers are abreast of these. In this review, we describe several MASCAL scenarios and their associated ethical, moral, and medicolegal quandaries in attempts to curb potential future misadventures.

Espousing the innocence of paediatric patients: an innocent act?

Since the 19th century, innocence has been a hallmark of childhood. The innocence of children is seen as both a sanctity worth defending and a feature that excuses the unavoidable mistakes of adolescence. While beneficial in many settings, notions of childhood innocence are often entangled with values judgements. Inherent in innocence is the notion that that which we are innocent of is undesirable. Further, attributing innocence to some implies the tolerability of blame for others. This has unique implications in a medical setting. This essay explores the implications of espousing the innocence of paediatric patients. Ultimately, because attribution of innocence is both prone to bias and rooted in the same framework as blame, it degrades patient-centred care and compromises the patient-provider relationship. I argue that avoiding such characterisations may allow providers to more effectively promote paediatric health.

What it is like to be manic: a response to Director.

In a recent article, Director makes the case that many individuals with bipolar disorder have the capacity to consent to many decisions while acutely manic, even when those decisions are out of character and cause harm. Referring to recent qualitative evidence, I argue that Director overlooks a key mechanism of manic incapacity, an inflexible experience of the future that impairs one's ability to value. Without attention to the illness-specific experience of decision-making, capacity assessments risk false negatives in people with mania.

Is it ethically permissible for GPs to promote non-directed altruistic kidney donation to healthy adults?

Doctors hold coexisting ethical duties to avoid causing deliberate harm to their patients (non-maleficence), to act in patients' best interests (beneficence), to respect patients' right to self-determination (autonomy) and to ensure that costs and benefits are fairly distributed among patients (justice). In the context of non-directed altruistic kidney donations (NDAKD), doctors' duties of autonomy and justice are in tension with those of non-maleficence and beneficence. This article examines these competing duties across three scenarios in which general practitioners (GPs) could promote NDAKD to healthy adults. In the first-when a healthy adult patient prompts the GP to discuss NDAKD-the GP is ethically obligated to counsel the patient about NDAKD to respect their autonomy, yet this does not constitute any form of promotion of NDAKD. In the remaining scenarios, healthy adult patients are unaware of the possibility of NDAKD. In the second, it is ethically permissible for GPs to indirectly raise awareness of NDAKD among healthy adults by displaying recruitment campaign material to non-specified groups of patients in their waiting rooms. In the third, it is ethically impermissible for GPs to directly promote NDAKD to individual healthy adults by raising the possibility of NDAKD with such individuals. The major counterarguments raised against this position are problems with kinds of counselling that fail to reach expected professional standards, rather than problems with the ethical claims made in this article.