Attacks on Health Care Used as a Weapon of War in Ukraine and Globally: The Demand for Accountability.

In this Viewpoint, authors from Physicians for Human Rights and the Ukrainian Healthcare Center present findings from a joint report documenting the attacks on health care workers and facilities as a weapon of war in the Russian war with Ukraine.

American Medical Trainee Perspectives on Ethical Conflicts during a Short-Term Global Health Rotation in Ethiopia: A Qualitative Analysis of 30 Cases.

There has been a significant increase in the number of students, residents, and fellows from high-income settings participating in short-term global health experiences (STGHEs) during their medical training. This analysis explores a series of ethical conflicts reported by medical residents and fellows from Emory University School of Medicine in the United States who participated in a 1-month global health rotation in Ethiopia. A constant comparative analysis was conducted using 30 consecutive reflective essays to identify emerging categories and themes of ethical conflicts experienced by the trainees. Ethical conflicts were internal; based in the presence of the visiting trainee and their personal interactions; or external, occurring due to witnessed events. Themes within internal conflicts include issues around professional identity and insufficient preparation for the rotation. External experiences were further stratified by the trainee's perception that Ethiopian colleagues agreed that the scenario represented an ethical conflict (congruent) or disagreed with the visiting trainee's perspective (incongruent). Examples of congruent themes included recognizing opportunities for collaboration and witnessing ethical conflicts that are similar to those experienced in the United States. Incongruent themes included utilization of existing resources, issues surrounding informed consent, and differing expectations of clinical outcomes. By acknowledging the frequency and roots of ethical conflicts experienced during STGHEs, sponsors may better prepare visiting trainees and reframe these conflicts as collaborative educational experiences that benefit both the visiting trainee and host providers.

Epistemic injustice in academic global health.

This Viewpoint calls attention to the pervasive wrongs related to knowledge production, use, and circulation in global health, many of which are taken for granted. We argue that common practices in academic global health (eg, authorship practices, research partnerships, academic writing, editorial practices, sensemaking practices, and the choice of audience or research framing, questions, and methods) are peppered with epistemic wrongs that lead to or exacerbate epistemic injustice. We describe two forms of epistemic wrongs, credibility deficit and interpretive marginalisation, which stem from structural exclusion of marginalised producers and recipients of knowledge. We then illustrate these forms of epistemic wrongs using examples of common practices in academic global health, and show how these wrongs are linked to the pose (or positionality) and the gaze (or audience) of producers of knowledge. The epistemic injustice framework shown in this Viewpoint can help to surface, detect, communicate, make sense of, avoid, and potentially undo unfair knowledge practices in global health that are inflicted upon people in their capacity as knowers, and as producers and recipients of knowledge, owing to structural prejudices in the processes involved in knowledge production, use, and circulation in global health.

Time for the ethical management of COVID-19 vaccines.

The ethical distribution of life-saving medical and public health interventions to vulnerable groups has often been overlooked. Valuation of life linked to an individual's country of origin, the pharmaceutical industry's prioritisation of profit, the exploitation of vulnerable groups in clinical trials, and the resulting hesitancy towards drugs and vaccines have, among other factors, made the human right to health unattainable for many people. The COVID-19 pandemic presents itself as an opportunity to reverse this long-standing trajectory of unethical practices in global health. By ensuring the ethical inclusion of vulnerable groups in the vaccine development process and making a safe, effective vaccine accessible to all, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and international organisations can usher in a new era of global health that relies solely on ethical decision making.

Expanding Opportunities for American Descendants of Slavery to Build a More Inclusive and Diverse Global Health Workforce.

Historically, the terms African American and Black have been used interchangeably to describe any person with African ancestry living in the United States. However, Black Americans are not a monolith, and legitimate differences exist between those with generational roots in the United States and either African or Caribbean immigrants. American descendants of slavery (ADOS) are underrepresented in many fields, but I have noticed during my decades long career in global health that they are acutely absent in this field. Here, I offer seven recommendations to improve recruitment, retention, and advancement of ADOS in the global health field. Immediate implementation of these recommendations will not only bring diverse perspectives and immense capacity to the field but also allow ADOS an opportunity to engage in compelling and meaningful work and to collaborate with those from their ancestral homelands.

Decolonizing Global Health Education: Rethinking Institutional Partnerships and Approaches.

Global health often entails partnerships between institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that were previously colonized and high-income countries (HICs) that were colonizers. Little attention has been paid to the legacy of former colonial relationships and the influence they have on global health initiatives. There have been recent calls for the decolonization of global health education and the reexamination of assumptions and practices under pinning global health partnerships. Medicine's role in colonialism cannot be ignored and requires critical review. There is a growing awareness of how knowledge generated in HICs defines practices and informs thinking to the detriment of knowledge systems in LMICs. Additionally, research partnerships often benefit the better-resourced partner. In this article, the authors offer a brief analysis of the intersections between colonialism, medicine, and global health education and explore the lingering impact of colonialist legacies on current global health programs and partnerships. They describe how "decolonized" perspectives have not gained sufficient traction and how inequitable power dynamics and neocolonialist assumptions continue to dominate. They discuss 5 approaches, and highlight resources, that challenge colonial paradigms in the global health arena. Furthermore, they argue for the inclusion of more transfor mative learning approaches to promote change in attitudes and practice. They call for critical reflection and concomitant action to shift colonial paradigms toward more equitable partnerships in global education.

Tackling modern-day crises: Why understanding multilevel interconnectivity is vital.

Complex crises like the coronavirus pandemic are showing us that modern societies are becoming increasingly unable to live in equilibrium with nature. These crises are the result of multiple causes, which interact at different scales and across different domains. Therefore, investigating their proximate causes is not enough to fully understand them. It is also crucial to take into account the structural factors involved. As concerns the global pandemic, I suggest four levels of analysis: (i) the surface or "proximate" level of the crisis; (ii) the human-environment-animal interface, as pointed out by the One Health approach; (iii) the broader socioeconomic context; and (iv) the deeper or worldview level. Furthermore, I argue that there is the need for a mindset shift if we want to properly trace causality. Much more attention must be given to the study of multilevel connecting patterns and nonlinear mechanisms as the producers of emergent global effects.

Bioethics and practical justice in the post-COVID-19 era.

The ethical concept of justice, as it relates to the development and deployment of innovative health technologies, commands the fair and equitable distribution of burdens and benefits. In bioethics, specific guidance on practical strategies for achieving what this concept of justice demands are somewhat elusive. Drawing on issues of justice arising or likely to arise in the context of the search for a vaccine or cure for COVID-19, this paper argues for a focus on the concept of "practical justice" in post-pandemic bioethics work. To illustrate the value and promise of this concept, the paper reflects on an approach to achieving practical justice in health biotechnology research that is grounded in a commitment to offer technical assistance to developing and under-resourced nations.