Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background Developments in information technology promise to revolutionise the delivery of health care by providing access to data in a timely and efficient way. Information technology also raises several important concerns about the confidentiality and privacy of health data. New and existing legislation in Europe and North America may make access to patient level data difficult with consequent impact on research and health surveillance. Although research is being conducted on technical solutions to protect the privacy of personal health information, there is very little research on ways to improve individuals power over their health information. This paper proposes a health care information directive, analogous to an advance directive, to facilitate choices regarding health information disclosure. Results and Discussion A health care information directive is described which creates a decision matrix that combines the ethical appropriateness of the use of personal health information with the sensitivity of the data. It creates a range of possibilities with in which individuals can choose to contribute health information with or without consent, or not to contribute information at all. Conclusion The health care information directive may increase individuals understanding of the uses of health information and increase their willingness to contribute certain kinds of health information. Further refinement and evaluation of the directive is required.

When public health decisionmakers turned to quarantine during the recent severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic, difficult questions were raised about the legitimacy and acceptability of restrictive measures to attain public health goals. SARS also brought to light how scientific uncertainty can permeate public health decisionmaking, leading us to think about the relationship between the adequacy of evidence of the effectiveness of an intervention and its role in the justification of public health action.

The field of global health is expanding rapidly. An increasing number of trainees are studying and working with marginalized populations, often within low and middle-income countries. Such endeavours are beset by ethical dilemmas: mitigating power differentials, addressing cultural differences in how health and illness are viewed, and obtaining individual and community consent in research. This introductory textbook supports students to understand and work through key areas of concern, assisting them in moving towards a more critical view of global health practise. Divided into two sections covering the theory and practice of global health ethics, the text begins by looking at definitions of global health and the field's historical context. It draws on anti-colonial perspectives concepts, developing social justice and solidarity as key principles to guide students. The second part focuses on ethical challenges students may face in clinical experiences or research. Topics such as working with indigenous communities, the politics of global health governance, and the ethical challenges of advocacy are explored using a case study approach. An Introduction to Global Health Ethics includes recommended resources and further readings, and is ideal for students from a range of disciplines - including public health, medicine, nursing, law and development studies - who are undertaking undergraduate and graduate courses in ethics or placements overseas.

The concept of the dual loyalty physicians may have to both a patient and a third party is important in elucidating the obligations of physicians. The extent to which loyalty may be deflected from a patient to a third party (e.g., an insurance company or a prison commander) is greatly underestimated and has not attracted significant scholarly analysis.

Abstract Background The use of restrictive measures such as quarantine draws into sharp relief the dynamic interplay between the individual rights of the citizen on the one hand and the collective rights of the community on the other. Concerns regarding infectious disease outbreaks (SARS, pandemic influenza) have intensified the need to understand public perceptions of quarantine and other social distancing measures. Methods We conducted a telephone survey of the general population in the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada. Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology was used. A final sample of 500 individuals was achieved through standard random-digit dialing. Results Our data indicate strong public support for the use of quarantine when required and for serious legal sanctions against those who fail to comply. This support is contingent both on the implementation of legal safeguards to protect against inappropriate use and on the provision of psychosocial supports for those affected. Conclusion To engender strong public support for quarantine and other restrictive measures, government officials and public health policy-makers would do well to implement a comprehensive system of supports and safeguards, to educate and inform frontline public health workers, and to engage the public at large in an open dialogue on the ethical use of restrictive measures during infectious disease outbreaks.

OBJECTIVES: 'Social justice' and 'health equity' are core values in public health. Yet, despite their normative character, the numerous normative accounts of social justice and equity are rarely acknowledged, meaning that these values are often unaccompanied by an explanation of what they require in practice. The objective of this study was to bridge this normative scholarship with information about how these 'core values' are integrated and interpreted by Canadian public health policy-makers. METHODS: Twenty qualitative interviews with public health policy-makers recruited from public health organizations in Canada, analyzed using an 'empirical ethics' methodology that combined empirical data with normative ethical analysis involving theories of justice. FINDINGS: Participants viewed health equity and social justice as distinct, where the former was perceived as 'clearer'. Health equity was conceptualized as focusing attention to 'proximal' disparities in access to services and 'materialistic' determinants of health, whereas social justice was conceptualized as focusing on structural issues that lead to disadvantage. Health equity was characterized as 'neutral' and 'comfortable', whereas social justice was characterized as 'political' and 'uncomfortable'. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that health equity dominates the discursive space wherein justice-based considerations are brought to bear on public health activities. As a result, 'uncomfortable' justice-based considerations of power imbalances and systematic disadvantage can be eschewed in practice in favour of attending to 'proximal' inequities. These findings reveal the problematic ways in which considerations of justice and equity are, and are not, being taken up in public health policy, which in turn may have negative implications for the public's health.

We used bibliometric analysis to evaluate the citations associated with publications by trainees in the Fogarty International Center's International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development program. Papers published between 2004 and 2008 were identified for analysis. The outcome measures were total citations, h-index, and i-10. A total of 328 manuscripts were identified, with a yearly average of 66 publications and 363 citations. The median number of citations per paper is 3 (IQR Q1–Q3:6). 12.6% (n = 53) of papers were cited over 10 times and the h-index is 22, indicating that 22 papers had been cited at least 22 times. The data indicate that trainees have been productive and contributed to the scholarly literature. Future studies to benchmark this performance with other bioethics education programs are required to make interpretation of citation analysis more meaningful.

A review was conducted of english-language peer-reviewed and gray literature on health and ethics written by authors from Bangladesh, China, India, and Pakistan. This was supplemented by the knowledge of co-authors who are involved in bioethics capacity building in these countries. Of the identified literature that focused on the application of Western principles, it largely discussed informed consent and revealed norms in clinical decision-making that include physician paternalism, family involvement in decision-making, and reluctance to provide information that might upset patients. It appears that Western ethical principles may be interpreted and applied in unexpected ways. The literature further indicates that, although there is some consistency with Western ideas, Islamic, Confucian, and Indian religious and philosophical traditions contain concepts not reflected in international guidance. Findings suggest scholars from these countries seek to enter into a bioethics dialogue with the potential to enrich and inform "international" frameworks.