In an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19, many states and countries have adopted public health restrictions on activities previously considered commonplace: crossing state borders, eating indoors, gathering together, and even leaving one’s home. These policies often focus on specific activities or groups, rather than imposing the same limits across the board. In this Article, I consider the law and ethics of these policies, which I call tailored policies. In Part II, I identify two types of tailored policies--activity-based (...) and group-based. Activity-based restrictions respond to differences in the risks and benefits of specific activities, such as walking outdoors and dining indoors. Group-based restrictions consider differences between groups with respect to risk and benefit. Examples are policies that treat children or senior citizens differently, policies that require travelers to quarantine when traveling to a new destination, and policies that treat individuals differently based on whether they have COVID-19 symptoms, have tested positive for COVID-19, have previous COVID-19 infection, or have been vaccinated against COVID-19. In Part III, I consider the public health law grounding of tailored policies in the principles of “least restrictive means” and “well-targeting.” I also examine how courts have analyzed tailored policies that have been challenged on fundamental rights or equal protection grounds. I argue that fundamental rights analyses typically favor tailored policies and that equal protection does not preclude the use of tailored policies even when imperfectly crafted. In Part IV, I consider three critiques of tailored policies, centering on the claims that they produce inequity, cause harm, or unacceptably limit liberty. I argue that we must evaluate restrictions comparatively: the question is not whether tailored policies are perfectly equitable, wholly prevent harm, or completely protect liberty, but whether they are better than untailored ones at realizing these goals in a pandemic. I also argue that evaluation must consider indirect harms and benefits as well as direct and apparent ones. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Data from digital technologies are increasingly integrated in public health research. In April of 2020, we interviewed a subset of participants who completed a survey approximately one month earlier. Using the survey, we contacted and interviewed participants who had expressed their willingness or unwillingness to share digital data for use in public health. We followed a directed content analysis approach for the analysis of the interview data. Among participants who had reported being unwilling to share data, concerns (...) about privacy, confidentiality, and the purpose of the research were cited. During the interviews, 76.9% of the participants who had who had previously indicated that they were unwilling to share their data, expressed willingness to share data in order to assist with COVID-19 prevention. Our results contribute to our understanding of people’s perspectives on sharing personal data and of the way their perspectives can vary as a function of potential uses of their personal information. (shrink)

BackgroundSolitary death (kodokushi) has recently become recognized as a social issue in Japan. The social isolation of older people leads to death without dignity. With the outbreak of COVID-19, efforts to eliminate solitary death need to be adjusted in line with changes in lifestyle and accompanying changes in social structure. Health monitoring services that utilize wearable devices may contribute to this end. Our goals are to outline how wearable devices might be used to (1) detect emergency situations involving solitary older (...) people and swiftly connect them with medical treatment, to (2) reduce the frequency of deaths that remain undiscovered and (3) to reduce social isolation by promoting social interaction. MethodsTheoretical and philosophical approaches were adopted to examine ethical issues surrounding the application of wearable devices and cloud-based information processing systems to prevent solitary death in the world with/after COVID-19.Main body(1) Technology cannot replace social connections; without social support necessary to foster understanding of the benefits of health management through wearable devices among older adults, such devices may remain unused, or not used properly. (2) Maturity of the technology; systems face the difficult task of detecting and responding to a wide range of health conditions and life-threatening events in time to avert avoidable morbidity and mortality. (3) Autonomy and personhood; promoting the voluntary use of wearable devices that are a part of larger efforts to connect isolated individuals to a community or social services might be effective. Legal force should be avoided if possible. There is some concern that landlords may require an older person to sign a contract agreeing to wear a device. The autonomy of solitary older people should be respected. (4) Governance: policies must be developed to limit access to data from wearables and the purposes for which data can be used.ConclusionIf thoughtfully deployed under proper policy constraints, wearable devices offer a way to connect solitary older people to health services and could reduce cases of solitary death while respecting the personhood of the user. (shrink)

In these twelve papers notable ethicists use the resources of ethical theory to illuminate important theoretical and practical topics, including the nature of public health, notions of community, population bioethics, the legitimate role of law, the use of cost-effectiveness as a methodology, vaccinations, and the nature of infectious disease.

The ethical restatement of the “risk and crisis communication in public health emergency” (PHERCC) matrix by Spitale et al. (2024) is a step up from mainstream approaches like the Crisis and Emerge...

During the COVID-19 public health crisis, market failures such as shortage of supplies and soaring prices of anti-epidemic materials – with masks as the core – have occurred. In essence, such anti-epidemic materials have the dual nature of necessities with low elasticity of demand and private products with positive externalities. This research explores the understanding of anti-pandemic materials and how different initiatives, and evaluation to increase availability of necessary resources can be effective in curbing a pandemic. Market regulation results (...) in a non-Pareto optimal allocation of resources and the difficulty of exerting the positive externalities of products. However, in China, the market failure of anti-epidemic materials was quickly resolved, due to the institutional advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the social responsibility drive of domestic enterprises, and cultural genes that focus on equity and concern for the disadvantaged. The optimal allocation of anti-epidemic materials gave access to exerting efficiency and fairness effects, positive external effects, and public effects. (shrink)

As a worldwide economic crisis emerged at the end of 2008, international health agencies were quick to highlight its predictable impact on health in the poorest of communities. The World Health Organization underscored the need for a multisectoral approach to the crisis, “seeking health gains through demonstrating the importance of health in all policies” and whether current investments in health addressed the broader social determinants of health. However, despite good intentions and decades of discussion addressing the need for transformative changes (...) globally to reduce poverty and improve health equity, little progress has been made.A recent report on progress towards the Millennium Development Goals indicates that many targeted goals have not been met, with some goals lagging many years behind schedule. Although progress towards achieving the MDGs has been made for some specific conditions, where targeted interventions have had an immediate impact, limited progress is reported in more complex areas such as maternal child health. Such complex health issues require structural changes, strong political will, long-term funding, and consideration of other health determinants, such as education and exposure to environmental hazards. (shrink)

For well over a millennium, public institutions have sought to limit the spread of disease. This article claims that shared political narratives about collective solidarity and belonging expressed in ideas about citizenship shape and constrain public health interventions. While a Sanitarian medical paradigm fit the mid-nineteenth-century British citizenship regime better than one based on limiting contagion by quarantine, full implementation of the “sanitary idea” had to wait upon adjustments after 1870 in the predominantly liberal citizenship regime, and particularly (...) in the institutions of governance and ideas about the responsibility mix. (shrink)

How far should we go in protecting and promoting public health? Can we force people to give up unhealthy habits and make healthier choices, or does everyone have the right to decide their own lifestyle? Should we stop treating smokers who refuse to give up smoking? Should we put a tax on fatty foods and ban vending machines in schools to address the obesity epidemic? Should parents be required to have their children vaccinated? Are some of our screening programmes (...) unethical Downs syndrome screening, for example or should we be screening people for more conditions, such as Huntington disease? Such questions are at the heart of public health ethics. Holland shows that to understand and debate these issues requires philosophy: moral philosophies, such as utilitarianism and deontology, as well as political philosophies such as liberalism and communitarianism. And philosophy informs other aspects of public health, such as epidemiology and health promotion. The aim of this book is to provide a lively, accessible and philosophically informed introduction to such issues. It is an ideal textbook for students taking courses in public health ethics. And since this book develops systematic discussions of issues in public health ethics, there is also much here to engage and challenge the more advanced reader. (shrink)

This book contains original essays that look at contagious/infectious disease pandemics and the ethical public policy and administration these have entailed. In particular, the pandemics of the 1918 flu pandemic, HIV in the 1990s, SARS in 2003, Ebola from 2014–2016 and the novel COVID-19 in 2020 are highlighted. The contributions in this work offer the reader insights in these and several other recent pandemics that present differently—either via contagion or mortality rate—and how each should be addressed by countries of (...) various sorts. This book is a must for the ongoing debate on how we should treat public health crises, such as the one we have all just encountered in the novel COVID-19 pandemic. (shrink)

Public Health Policy and Ethics brings together philosophers and practitioners to address the foundations and principles upon which public health policy may be advanced – especially in the international arena. What is the basis that justifies public health in the first place? Why should individuals be disadvantaged for the sake of the group? How do policy concerns and clinical practice work together and work against each other? Can the boundaries of public health be extended to include (...) social ills that are amenable to group-dynamic solutions? What about political issues? How can international finance make an impact? These are some of the crucial questions that form the core of this volume of original essays sure to cause practitioners to engage in a critical re-evaluation of the role of ethics in public health policy. (shrink)

Abstract25.6 Million people in the United States have Limited English Proficiency (LEP), defined as insufficient ability to read, write, or understand English. We will (1) Delineate the merits of approaching language as a social determinant of health, (2) highlight pertinent public health values and guidelines which are most relevant to the plight of populations with LEP and (3) Use the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of how a breakdown in public health ethics values created harm for populations and (...) patients with LEP. We define a framework to tease out public health responsibilities given some populations’ limited proficiency in a society’s predominant language. The American Public Health Association (APHA) public health ethics core values serve as a framework to interrogate current practices. We use the COVID-19 case to illustrate gaps between health policy and healthcare disparities experienced by populations with LEP. (shrink)

Claims that there are good arguments for a public health service that do not amount to arguments for a national health service, but for something that looks far more like a transnational health service.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has infected millions around the world. Governments initially responded by requiring businesses to close and citizens to self‐isolate, as well as funding vaccine research and implementing a range of technologies to monitor and limit the spread of the disease. This article considers the use of smartphone metadata and Bluetooth applications for public health surveillance purposes in relation to COVID‐19. It undertakes ethical analysis of these measures, particularly in relation to collective moral responsibility, considering whether citizens ought, (...) or should be compelled, to comply with government measures. (shrink)

The Ethics of Public Health Paternalism is about policies that try to stop people damaging their own health. From the point of view of public health advocates, if people did not smoke, or drank less alcohol, or kept off junk food and sugary liquids, they would tend to be healthier. Hence such tactics as taxing tobacco, restricting the sale of alcohol, and limiting the density of fast-food outlets. These tactics are often pejoratively described as the actions of a (...) 'nanny state' that overvalues health and wrongly infringes on the autonomy of adults. But many of us want to be healthy rather than ill, and alive rather than dead. Does a state really nanny us when it uses its power to make us healthier? If it does, should it stop? (shrink)

The ethical dimensions of health communicators' interventions and campaigns are brought into question in this thought-provoking book. Examining the efforts to effect behavior change, the author questions how far health communication can and should go in changing people's values. The author broadens the current analysis of interventions and presents conceptual frameworks that help identify values and justifications that are embedded in health communication goals, strategies, and evaluation criteria. This critical approach helps explain how and why choices are made in design (...) and implementation, and provides constructs and frameworks to examine them. It also widens the criteria for program evaluation and policymaking, and provides practitioners, planners, policy-makers, researchers, and students with practice-oriented questions. (shrink)

There is an underdeveloped potential for using neuroscience as a particular input in the process of law-making. This paper examines one such instance in the area of public health law. Neuroscience could play an important role in elucidating and strengthening the relevance of the conditions underlying and re-enforcing our ability to cooperate in balancing the benefits and burdens necessary to achieve particular goods; for instance, the protection of public health in an outbreak of pandemic influenza. In particular, I (...) shall focus on how a better understanding of the neurobiological basis of reciprocity could be used to help increase support and compliance with public heath laws—especially those involving restrictive measures (such as quarantine and isolation). (shrink)

Public health nursing is grounded in public health ideologies and fundamental nursing values. Researchers have argued that ethical responsibility from the perspective of the nurse is an understudied phenomenon. This meta-ethnography provides in-depth knowledge of how public health nurses (PHNs) experience ethical responsibility when working to prevent injury and disease, and promote health and well-being in children, young people and their families. There are reciprocal findings across the 10 included studies. The findings reveal that these nurses often (...) feel alone, have worries and uncertainties and are afraid of doing wrong. They describe unclear boundaries in their work, creating a heightened sense of responsibility. PHNs fight lonely battles. Yet they show courage and commitment and are ready to stand up and fight for children and families who do not receive adequate care. A line of argument is developed and the metaphorical phrase Chivalrous knights in moral armour is used to express the authors’ overall interpretations of the findings. Reflection on the findings shows how the different dimensions of ethical responsibility are interconnected. The nurses’ ethical sensitivity enables them to feel compassion for others and they show indignation when vulnerable others are not treated with dignity and respect. Indignation and compassion are interrelated, and when human life and dignity are threatened, the ethical demand to respond emerges. Indignation is a precursor to moral courage, and the nurses’ moral sensitivity and respect for their clients emboldens them to stand up for vulnerable others. The findings also illustrate the paradoxical nature of freedom. Freedom of choice due to unclear boundaries heightens the nurses' sense of responsibility. This research is an important step in theory development and has implications for further research, education and practice. (shrink)

Public health ethics, like the field of public health it addresses, traditionally has focused more on practice and particular cases than on theory, with the result that some concepts, methods, and boundaries remain largely undefined. This paper attempts to provide a rough conceptual map of the terrain of public health ethics. We begin by briefly defining public health and identifying general features of the field that are particularly relevant for a discussion of public health ethics. (...) class='Hi'>Public health is primarily concerned with the health of the entire population, rather than the health of individuals. Its features include an emphasis on the promotion of health and the prevention of disease and disability; the collection and use of epidemiological data, population surveillance, and other forms of empirical quantitative assessment; a recognition of the multidimensional nature of the determinants of health; and a focus on the complex interactions of many factors—biological, behavioral, social, and environmental—in developing effective interventions. (shrink)

The legion of nettlesome, even litigious, issues at the interface of the entwined fields of law, public health, and ethics sorely warrant rapt, informed discussion. Indeed, unabashed confronting of the thicket of thorny issues overfilling the enmeshed, vexing fields of public health, law, and ethics is, in sooth, a Sisyphean task. Distinguished lawyer, experienced public health researcher, and very able writer Lawrence Gostin merits hearty felicitations for his workaday efforts in editing this prolix tome, entitled Public (...) Health Law and Ethics: a Reader, which illumines a quite broad swathe of the complex fabric of issues interconnecting law, public health, and ethics.The excellently edited tome crafted by Gostin is structured as a congeries of reprinted materials, principally academic articles and law cases, presented in excerpted fashion, with expert, insightful commentary provided by Gostin germane to the reprinted materials and generally appertaining to the practice and theory of public health law and ethics. Gostin assigned himself the daunting …. (shrink)

There are a number of important links and similarities between public health and safety. In this extended essay, Gregg D. Caruso defends and expands his public health-quarantine model, which is a non-retributive alternative for addressing criminal behavior that draws on the public health framework and prioritizes prevention and social justice. In developing his account, he explores the relationship between public health and safety, focusing on how social inequalities and systemic injustices affect health outcomes and crime rates, (...) how poverty affects brain development, how offenders often have pre-existing medical conditions (especially mental health issues), how involvement in the criminal justice system itself can lead to or worsen health and cognitive problems, how treatment and rehabilitation methods can best be employed to reduce recidivism and reintegrate offenders back into society, and how a public health approach could be successfully applied within the criminal justice system. Caruso's approach draws on research from the health sciences, social sciences, public policy, law, psychiatry, medical ethics, neuroscience, and philosophy, and he delivers a set of ethically defensible and practically workable proposals for implementing the public health-quarantine model. The essay begins by discussing recent empirical findings in psychology, neuroscience, and the social sciences that provide us with an increased understanding of the social and neurological determinants of health and criminal behavior. It then turns to Caruso's public health-quarantine model and argues that the model provides the most justified, humane, and effective approach for addressing criminal behavior. Caruso concludes by proposing a capability approach to social justice grounded in six key features of human well-being. He argues that we cannot successfully address concerns over public health and safety without simultaneously addressing issues of social justice—including the social determinants of health (SDH) and the social determinants of criminal behavior (SDCB)—and he recommends eight general policy proposals consistent with his model. (shrink)

A normatively adequate public health ethics needs to be anchored in political philosophy rather than in ethics. Its central ethical concerns are likely to include trust and justice, rather than autonomy and informed consent.

This paper presents, defends and applies a conception of public health ethics as focused on liberty-limiting public health action. This approach has been persistently criticised, but the criticism is ambiguous between two challenges: that the focus on liberty makes an objectionable presumption in favour of liberal values and that the focus on liberty fails to address institutionalised social injustice. Part One of the paper addresses both challenges to show they can be met by a nuanced account of a (...) liberty-oriented public health ethics. Part Two establishes that debates about policy responses to the current Covid-19 pandemic illustrate and vindicate this conception of public health ethics as focused on liberty-limiting public health action. The discussion then turns to the methodological question as to how public health policies are to be evaluated, focusing particular on the role of normative theory in such evaluations. The methodology of ‘wide reflective equilibrium’ is described and endorsed; the paper ends with a case study to illustrate this evaluative methodology, focused on the ethics of COVID-19 immunity passports. (shrink)

Successful public health interventions have, in recent decades, improved the health of the working classes in significant ways across much of the western world. Nevertheless, here, I argue that populist electoral breakthroughs over the last decade may be considered side-effects of ‘successful’ public health policies: crucially, the claim is that those political side-effects resulted because of—rather than despite—the health-measured success of those public health interventions.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought about at least two normative challenges on unprecedented scale for liberal democracies. One concerned prioritization decisions when health care resources were constrained. The other, which arguably led to lasting damage to social cohesion and citizens’ trust in government and government public health institutions, concerned policies introduced with the aim of reducing the spread of SARS-CoV2, some of which turned out to be mistaken. I discuss in this essay a few examples of misguided, liberty-limiting public (...) health policies and describe how public health and public health ethics principlism provided cover for such policies. Citizens had reasons to be concerned about the duration of such liberty-infringing policies, the absence of predictable government policies, and the absence of transparent justifications for the policies that were implemented. (shrink)

It was a great privilege to know Professor Charity Scott. I first met her when I was finishing Emory University’s joint law and public health program in the early 2000s, through the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in the early days of CDC’s Public Health Law Program, now the Office of Public Health Law Services. In those days, introductions were generous and frequent for excited students beginning their careers, but meeting (...) Professor Scott made an impression on me. She was the first and only female health law professor in the field that I had the opportunity to know in the early years of my career. (shrink)

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in English ; abstract also in Chinese. 本文介紹生物倫理學與公共健康倫理學領域，並描述兩者之間的關係；文章尾聲將展望公共健康倫理學論未來既廣泛又多變的方向。本文首先簡介公共健康倫理學的本質，以及如何把其與比之更廣闊的生物倫理學作出區分，因此 需要提出公共健康倫理學的定義，以助釐清公共健康倫理的重點。隨後，本文簡述公共健康倫理學文獻的一些最新進展，包括圍繞新冠病毒、大流行病、抗菌素抗藥性、「生活方式」疾病及正義等道德問題。本文同時論及就干預 公共健康的「合法範圍」所提出的觀點之間於政治及形而上學的角力。其後本文探討公共健康倫理學所面臨的挑戰，包括其複雜又多元的性質。而且公共健康實踐高度政治化，其政治化的原因是因為公共健康影響整個人口及社區 ，而很多關於公共健康的決策由政治人物而非公共健康專家所作出。此外，公共健康倫理也因為公共健康的範圍擴展至納入非政府公共健康行動者而面臨進一步的挑戰。本文最後闡述有關公共健康的一些未來方向，包括「公共健 康觀」的出現，以作為為人熟知的健康與社會問題的形而上學框架、把該領域的認知和道德基礎去殖民化以涵蓋更廣泛的知識，以及一些包括美德在内的公共健康倫理學的理論發展。筆者建議讀者把文章視為對公共健康倫理學領 域的一部分介紹，並鼓勵他們閲讀本文所引用的論文，並以這些論文作為進入所涵蓋主題的大量文獻之門徑。公共健康倫理學是一個相對年輕的領域，而該領域有著巨大的成長及發掘更多新概念的潛力。 This essay begins by introducing the fields of bioethics and public health ethics and describing the relationship between them. It ends with some glimpses into the wide-ranging and discourse-changing directions of the literature on public health ethics. To open, the paper describes the field of public health ethics and how it is differentiated from the wider field of bioethics. This requires a brief description of (...) public health to clarify the nature of public health ethics. The essay then provides a brief overview of a few recent developments in the public health ethics literature, including the moral issues raised by COVID-19 and pandemics, anti-microbial resistance, ‘lifestyle’ diseases and justice. The paper also touches on the political and metaphysical tensions in views on what counts as a ‘legitimate area’ of intervention for public health. The essay then turns to a couple of challenges in the field of public health ethics, specifically the complex and multi-disciplinary nature of the field and the fact that public health practice is a highly political area. Public health is political both in the sense that it affects entire populations or communities and in the sense that many decisions about public health are made by politicians rather than public health experts. A further challenge to public health ethics is the question of what counts as ‘public health’, as the scope has been broadened to include non-governmental public health actors. Finally, the essay describes some future directions for research in public health ethics, including ‘public health view’ becoming a metaphysical framing for familiar health and social issues and decolonising the epistemic and moral foundations of the field to include a wider set of knowledge sources and values. There are also some theoretical developments that integrate virtue into public health ethics. The reader should take this essay as a partial introduction to the field, and they are highly encouraged to read the papers that are cited here and to use those papers as a gateway into the large literature on the topics covered. Public health ethics is a relatively young field, with an enormous potential for growth and new ideas. (shrink)

Public health ethics in the future will be distinguished from public health ethics in the past by this new subfield being labeled as such, acknowledged, and called upon for service. Ethical dilemmas have been present throughout the history of public health. The question of whether to force Henning Jacobson to be immunized in 1905 in accordance with the 1902 Massachusetts smallpox vaccination law was one of ethics as well as law. How Thomas Parran, Surgeon General in 1936, (...) chose to respond to a raging syphilis epidemic in the United States in the early part of the 2W century raised considerable moral debate in determining the appropriate public health response for a government? More recently, questions have arisen concerning the appropriate reach of government in controlling HIV banning smoking, or promoting healthy lifestyles. Debates over government infringement, morality, and justice recur throughout the history of public health. (shrink)

In contrast to medical care, which is focused on the individual patient, public health is focused on collective health. This article argues that, in order to better protect the individual, discussions of public health would benefit from incorporating the insights of virtue ethics. There are three reasons to for this. First, the collective focus may cause neglect of the effects of public health policy on the interests and rights of individuals and minorities. Second, whereas the one-on-one encounters (...) in medical care facilitate a compassionate and caring attitude, public health involves a distance between professionals and the public. Therefore, public health professionals must use imagination and care to evaluate the effects of policies on individuals. Third, the relationship between public health professionals and the people who are affected by the policies they design is characterized by power asymmetry, demanding a high level of responsibility from those who wield them. Against this background, it is argued that public health professionals should develop the virtues of responsibility, compassion and humility. The examples provided, i.e. breastfeeding information and vaccination policy, illustrate the importance of these virtues, which needed for normative as well as instrumental reasons, i.e. as a way to restore trust. (shrink)

Within the field of medical ethics, discussions related to public health have mainly concentrated on issues that are closely tied to research and practice involving technologies and professional services, including vaccination, screening, and insurance coverage. Broader determinants of population health have received less attention, although this situation is rapidly changing. Against this backdrop, our specific contribution to the literature on ethics and law vis-à-vis promoting population health is to open up the ubiquitous presence of pets within cities and towns (...) for further discussion. An expanding body of research suggests that pet animals are deeply relevant to people’s health (negatively and positively). Pet bylaws adopted by town and city councils have largely escaped notice, yet they are meaningful to consider in relation to everyday practices, social norms, and cultural values, and thus in relation to population health. Nevertheless, not least because they pivot on defining pets as private property belonging to individual people, pet bylaws raise emotionally charged ethical issues that have yet to be tackled in any of the health research on pet ownership. The literature in moral philosophy on animals is vast, and we do not claim to advance this field here. Rather, we pragmatically seek to reconcile philosophical objections to pet ownership with both animal welfare and public health. In doing so, we foreground theorizations of personhood and property from sociocultural anthropology. (shrink)

The suggestion that crime be treated as a public health problem instead of being treated retributively provokes unease for two reasons. Firstly, it is thought to foster impersonal treatment, which is “objectifying” or “dehumanizing.” I argue that practices are problematically impersonal when they bypass or undermine an agent’s ability to take responsibility. However, there is a difference between taken responsibility and retributive responsibility. Skepticism about the latter does not entail skepticism about the former. Skeptics about retributive desert still have (...) strong moral reasons to condemn practices that undermine taken responsibility, so it need not have these dehumanizing implications. Secondly, the association of medicine and crime has a dark history. While this is true, this is largely because medicine has a dark history. Instead of striving to limit things that fall within the boundaries of public health, I argue that the solution is to take a more ethical approach to public health. (shrink)

This encyclopedia entry provides an overview of the field of public health ethics. It focuses on what distinguishes public health ethics from other nearby subfields—especially biomedical ethics. It also frames the problems of public health ethics in terms of the concepts of justice and political legitimacy.

This paper argues that individuals do, in a sense, own or have exclusive claims to control their personal information and body parts. It begins by sketching several arguments that support presumptive claims to informational privacy, turning then to consider cases which illustrate when and how privacy may be overridden by public health concerns.

Although empirical evidence may provide a much desired sense of certainty amidst a pandemic characterised by uncertainty, the vast gamut of available COVID-19 data, including misinformation, has instead increased confusion and distrust in authorities’ decisions. One key lesson we have been gradually learning from the COVID-19 pandemic is that the availability of empirical data and scientific evidence alone do not automatically lead to good decisions. Good decision-making in public health policy, this paper argues, does depend on the availability of (...) reliable data and rigorous analyses, but depends above all on sound ethical reasoning that ascribes value and normative judgement to empirical facts. (shrink)

Public health laws and policies are uniquely able to mitigate the adverse and inequitable health impacts of climate change. This article summarizes some key considerations in developing such laws and policies and a variety of approaches local public health departments are using to increase climate resilience and health equity.

One branch of bioethics assumes that mainly agents of the state are responsible for public health. Following Susan Sherwin’s relational ethics, we suggest moving away from a “state-centered” approach toward a more thoroughly relational approach. Indeed, certain agents must be reconstituted in and through shifting relations with others, complicating discussions of responsibility for public health. Drawing on two case studies—the health politics and activism of the Black Panther Party and the work of the Common Ground Collective in post-Katrina (...) New Orleans—we argue for the need to attend more carefully to the limitations of states and state-driven public health programs. (shrink)

Soziale Faktoren haben einen starken Einfluss auf die Gesundheit und Lebenserwartung. Auch in Wohlfahrtsstaaten bestehen signifikante gesundheitliche Ungleichheiten zwischen besser und schlechter gestellten Bevölkerungsgruppen. Sie werden zunehmend als ein Problem der sozialen Gerechtigkeit wahrgenommen. Public Health dient dem Abbau gesundheitlicher Ungleichheiten und somit der Förderung der sozialen Gerechtigkeit. Obwohl Public Health-Maßnahmen effizienter zur Förderung und Angleichung der Bevölkerungsgesundheit beitragen können als viele medizinische Versorgungen, erhalten sie einen geringeren gesundheitspolitischen Stellenwert. Diese Prioritätensetzung zu Gunsten der Medizin kann als irrational (...) kritisiert werden. Allerdings ist zu beachten, dass die medizinische Versorgung eine hohe symbolische Bedeutung für die Fürsorge und soziale Anerkennung hat, die bei Public Health nicht in gleichem Maße gegeben ist. Gesundheitliche Ungleichheiten sind nicht per se sozial ungerecht, sondern dann, wenn sie auf einer ungerechten Verteilung sozialer Gesundheitsfaktoren beruhen. Diese Faktoren wie z. B. Einkommen und Bildung haben auch unabhängig von ihren gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen eine Bedeutung für die soziale Gerechtigkeit. Daher kann die Gesundheitsgerechtigkeit nicht isoliert, sondern nur im Kontext einer umfassenden Theorie der sozialen Gerechtigkeit bestimmt werden. (shrink)

Public health nurses (PHN) have had a long history of working with new mothers in the community. Their practice includes collaboration, building therapeutic relationships, mutual goal setting, establishing trust, supporting clients’ strengths, empowerment and social justice. The wealth of information that new mothers receive both solicited and unsolicited may come from many different sources such as medicine, midwifery and those created personally by families. Although much of the information on mothering is presented with the intent of helping, it can (...) also be hegemonic and oppressive depending on different discourses, stereotypes and myths of mothering and therefore may cause confusion, guilt and uncertainty. Public health nurses often address conflicting social, cultural and personal discourses about mothering practices in order to support an empowering mothering experience. The term ‘social mediator’ was purposefully created in an attempt to describe the unique work of PHNs that this author has witnessed through her own research and practice as a PHN. This paper will present a discussion of the author's own work and research findings that will suggest how feminist poststructuralist theory may be used to guide and understand information exchange between PHNs and mothers as they mediate different social, cultural and personal discourses on mothering. (shrink)

This discussion revises and extends Jonny Anomaly's ‘public goods’ account of public health ethics in light of recent criticism from Richard Dees. Public goods are goods that are both non-rival and non-excludable. What is significant about such goods is that they are not always provided efficiently by the market. Indeed, the state can sometimes realize efficiency gains either by supplying such goods directly or by compelling private purchase. But public goods are not the only goods that (...) the market may fail to provide efficiently. This point to a way of broadening the public goods account of public health to accommodate Dees' counterexamples, without abandoning its distinctive appeal. On the market failures approach to public health ethics, the role of public health is to correct public health-related market failures of all kinds, so far as possible. The underlying moral commitment is to economic efficiency in the sense of Pareto: if we can re-allocate resources in the economy so as to raise the welfare of some without lowering the welfare of any other, we ought to do so. (shrink)

This unique textbook utilizes an integrated, case-based approach to explore how the domains of bioethics, public health and the social sciences impact individual patients and populations. It provides a structured framework suitable for both educators (including course directors and others engaged in curricular design) and for medical and health professions students to use in classroom settings across a range of clinical areas and allied health professions and for independent study. The textbook opens with an introduction, describing the intersection of (...) ethics and public health in clinical practice and the six key themes that inform the book's core learning objectives, followed by a guide to using the book. It then presents 22 case studies that address a broad spectrum of patient populations, clinical settings, and disease pathologies. Each pair of cases shares a core concept in bioethics or public health, from community perspectives and end-of-life care to medical mistakes and stigma and marginalization. They engage learners in rigorous clinical and ethical reasoning by prompting readers to make choices based on available information and then providing additional information to challenge assumptions, simulating clinical decision-making. In addition to providing a unique, detailed clinical scenario, each case is presented in a consistent format, which includes learning objectives, questions and responses for self-directed learning, questions and responses for group discussion, references, and suggested further reading. All cases integrate the six themes of patient- and family-centered care; evidence-based practice; structural competency; biases in decision-making; cultural humility and awareness of the culture of medicine; and justice, social responsibility and advocacy. The final section discusses some challenges to evaluating courses and learning encounters that adopt the cases and includes a model framework for learner assessment. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to explore the concept and scope of public health and to argue that particularly in low-income contexts, where social injustice and poverty often impact significantly on the overall health of the population, the link between public health and social justice should be a very firm one. Furthermore, social justice in these contexts must be understood as not simply a matter for local communities and nation-states, but in so far as public health (...) is concerned, as a matter of global concern and responsibility. The interpretation of the scope of public health by any particular nation is I believe contingent on the current socio-political context and the conception of social or distributive justice that underpins this context. Furthermore I will argue here that the link between public health and social justice ought to be founded on a conception of social justice that adequately addresses issues of social injustice, and patterns of systematic disadvantage, that contribute to ill health and that so commonly prevail in many low- and middle-income social contexts. (shrink)

COVID19 pandemic has clarified that public health policies are central for the future of human societies from several perspectives. As a matter of fact, they are based on certain premises that are practical-political (e.g., ensuring the health of citizens), moral (e.g., health is a value), or epistemological (e.g., certain ideas concerning expertise and shared knowledge). Indeed, effective policies require first and foremost not only to be based on reliable data and models (i.e., so-called evidence-based policy) but also to ensure (...) that these policies are democratically accepted, shared (e.g., considering both cognitive and social dimensions), and hopefully formed after a deliberative process involving experts from various fields alongside citizens. (shrink)