Ethics and infectious disease

Bioethics apparently suffers from a misdistribution of research resources analogous to the '10/90' divide in medical research. Though infectious disease should be recognized as a topic of primary importance for bioethics, the general topic of infectious disease has received relatively little attention from the discipline of bioethics in comparison with things like abortion, euthanasia, genetics, cloning, stem cell research, and so on. The fact that the historical and potential future consequences of infectious diseases are almost unrivalled is one reason that the topic of infectious disease warrants more attention from bioethicists. The 'Black Death' eliminated one third of the European population during the 14th Century; the 1989 flu killed between 20 and 100 million people; and, in the 20th Century smallpox killed perhaps three times more people than all the wars of that period. In the contemporary world, epidemics (AIDS, multi-drug resistant turberculosis, and newly emerging infectious diseases such as SARS) continue to have dramatic consequences. A second reason why the topic of infectious disease deserves further attention is that it raises difficult ethical questions of its own. While infected individuals can threaten the health of other individuals and society as a whole, for example, public health care measures such as surveillance, isolation, and quarantine can require the infringement of widely accepted basic human rights and liberties. An important and difficult ethical question asks how to strike a balance between the utilitarian aim of promoting public health, on the one hand, and libertarian aims of protecting privacy and freedom of movement, on the other, in contexts involving diseases that are--to varying degrees--contagious, deadly, or otherwise dangerous. Third, since their burden is most heavily shouldered by the poor (in developing countries), infectious diseases involve issues of justice--which should be a central concern of ethics. I conclude by providing sociological and historical explanations of why the topic of infectious disease has not already received more attention from bioethicists.     

Bioethics for human geneticists: models for reasoning and methods for teaching.

The ethical issues raised by the Human Genome Project (HGP) and by human genetics in general are not entirely novel. In fact, the ethical issues surrounding genetic research and the provision of genetic services fit into the evolution of bioethics, a field of inquiry which has its roots in concerns of the 1970s, concerns about the dignity and self-determination of individuals and about the development of medical technologies. Although bioethics has been largely occupied with patient-centered concerns, attention is currently shifting toward socially oriented issues, such as the justice of the existing health-care system. Genetic counseling has already incorporated many of the lessons of early bioethics and, as a profession, adheres to a consultand-centered ethic which reflects the values incorporated into the doctrine of informed consent, which is a cornerstone of bioethics. The mandate of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program of the HGP--to anticipate ethical problems arising from advances in genetics and to educate the public about genetics--reflects not only the nonpaternalistic approach of early bioethics but also bioethics' increasing attention to the ethical import of systemic and institutional factors, as well as an anticipatory and preventive approach to dealing with ethical concerns. Because bioethics has so much to contribute to current consideration of ethical issues in human genetics, it is important to provide training in ethics to those working in the field. Guidelines for using a case-oriented approach are suggested.     

GLOBAL HEALTH ETHICS FOR STUDENTS

As a result of increased interest in global health, more and more medical students and trainees from the 'developed world' are working and studying in the 'developing world'. However, while opportunities to do this important work increase, there has been insufficient development of ethical guidelines for students. It is often assumed that ethics training in developed world situations is applicable to health experiences globally. However, fundamental differences in both clinical and research settings necessitate an alternative paradigm of analysis. This article is intended for teachers who are responsible for preparing students prior to such experiences. A review of major ethical issues is presented, how they pertain to students, and a framework is outlined to help guide students in their work.     

Was bioethics founded on historical and conceptual mistakes about medical paternalism?

Bioethics has a founding story in which medical paternalism, the interference with the autonomy of patients for their own clinical benefit, was an accepted ethical norm in the history of Western medical ethics and was widespread in clinical practice until bioethics changed the ethical norms and practice of medicine. In this paper I show that the founding story of bioethics misreads major texts in the history of Western medical ethics. I also show that a major source for empirical claims about the widespread practice of medical paternalism has been misread. I then show that that bioethics based on its founding story deprofessionalizes medical ethics. The result leaves the sick exposed to the predatory power of medical practitioners and healthcare organizations with only their autonomy-based rights to non-interference, expressed in contracts, to protect them. The sick are stripped of the protection afforded by a professional, fiduciary relationship of physicians to their patients. Bioethics based on its founding story reverts to the older model of a contractual relationship between the sick and medical practitioners not worthy of intellectual or moral trust (because such trust cannot be generated by what I call 'deprofessionalizing bioethics'). On closer examination, bioethics based on its founding story, ironically, eliminates paternalism as a moral category in bioethics, thus causing bioethics to collapse on itself because it denies one of the necessary conditions for medical paternalism. Bioethics based on its founding story should be abandoned.     

Current bioethical issues in parasitology

Parasitic diseases constitute the most common infections among the poorest billion people, entailing high mortality rates and leading to long-term infirmities and poverty. Although the setting-up of public health programs implies many ethical consequences, the range of specific questions in parasitology that can be attributed to bioethics remains, to a large extent, unexplored. From the present analysis, it emerged three main issues which characterize ethical stakes in parasitology: accounting the complexity of the field of intervention, putting the principle of justice into practice and managing the changing context of research. From the research angle, medical parasitology-mycology, as other biological disciplines, is undergoing tensions derived from biological reductionism. Thanks to its links with the history and philosophy of the sciences, bioethics can help to clarify them and to explain the growing hold that technologies have over scientific thinking. On the whole, researchers as well as clinicians are called on to assume a specific responsibility, proportional to their competence and their place in the making of scientific, health, economic and social decisions.     

什么是生命伦理学？——从历史发展的视角

生命伦理学是20世纪60年代兴起于美国的一门新兴学科,旨在应对生命科学和生物技术的发展或医疗保健的演变使人类面临的种种伦理难题。生命伦理学的兴起有着特殊的社会历史背景。它在发展过程中出现的一些里程碑式的案例,对生命伦理学的发展产生了深远的影响。从其发展特征上看,生命伦理学和医学伦理学紧密联系,有着更为广泛的研究内容和独特的专业特性。生命伦理学要有效回应现代医学和生命科学的发展给人类带来的伦理难题,既要准确地界定伦理问题,又要以适当的方式将伦理学基础理论应用到具体问题当中。对生命伦理学的基本理论进行概述。     

Reflecting on ethical and legal issues in wildlife disease

Disease in wildlife raises a number of issues that have not been widely considered in the bioethical literature. However, wildlife disease has major implications for human welfare. The majority of emerging human infectious diseases are zoonotic: that is, they occur in humans by cross‐species transmission from animal hosts. Managing these diseases often involves balancing concerns with human health against animal welfare and conservation concerns. Many infectious diseases of domestic animals are shared with wild animals, although it is often unclear whether the infection spills over from wild animals to domestic animals or vice versa. Culling is the standard means of managing such diseases, bringing economic considerations, animal welfare and conservation into conflict. Infectious diseases are also major threatening processes in conservation biology and their appropriate management by culling, vaccination or treatment raises substantial animal ethics issues. One particular issue of great significance in Australia is an ongoing research program to develop genetically modified pathogens to control vertebrate pests including rabbits, foxes and house mice. Release of any self‐replicating GMO vertebrate pathogen gives rise to a whole series of ethical questions. We briefly review current Australian legal responses to these problems. Finally, we present two unresolved problems of general importance that are exemplified by wildlife disease. First, to what extent can or should ‘bioethics’ be broadened beyond direct concerns with human welfare to animal welfare and environmental welfare? Second, how should the irreducible uncertainty of ecological systems be accounted for in ethical decision making?     

Are there Characteristics of Infectious Diseases that Raise Special Ethical Issues?1

This paper examines the characteristics of infectious diseases that raise special medical and social ethical issues, and explores ways of integrating both current bioethical and classical public health ethics concerns. Many of the ethical issues raised by infectious diseases are related to these diseases' powerful ability to engender fear in individuals and panic in populations. We address the association of some infectious diseases with high morbidity and mortality rates, the sense that infectious diseases are caused by invasion or attack on humans by foreign micro-organisms, the acute onset and rapid course of many infectious diseases, and, in particular, the communicability of infectious diseases. The individual fear and community panic associated with infectious diseases often leads to rapid, emotionally driven decision making about public health policies needed to protect the community that may be in conflict with current bioethical principles regarding the care of individual patients. The discussion includes recent examples where dialogue between public health practitioners and medical-ethicists has helped resolve ethical issues that require us to consider the infected patient as both a victim with individual needs and rights and as a potential vector of disease that is of concern to the community.     

International research ethics: progress, but not perfection

To the uninitiated researcher, bioethics can be a confusing and sometimes bureaucratic process. The recent debates in international research ethics have both increased understanding of contentious issues while extending confusion to the international arena. Here, we attempt to demystify bioethics, or more specifically international research ethics, by defining ethics in the context of morality, reviewing core Western ethical principles, and highlighting challenges in international research ethics.     

THE FUTURE OF BIOETHICS: THREE DOGMAS AND A CUP OF HEMLOCK

In this paper I argue that bioethics is in crisis and that it will not have a future unless it begins to embrace a more Socratic approach to its leading assumptions. The absence of a critical and sceptical spirit has resulted in little more than a dominant ideology. I focus on three key issues. First, that too often bioethics collapses into medical ethics. Second, that medical ethics itself is beset by a lack of self‐reflection that I characterize here as a commitment to three dogmas. Third, I offer a more positive perspective by suggesting how bioethics may benefit from looking towards public health ethics as a new source of inspiration and direction.     

Patient-Centred Care: Qualitative Findings on Health Professionals’ Understanding of Ethics in Acute Medicine

In recent years the literature on bioethics has begun to pose the sociological challenge of how to explore organisational processes that facilitate a systemic response to ethical concerns. The present discussion seeks to make a contribution to this important new direction in ethical research by presenting findings from an Australian pilot study. The research was initiated by the Clinical Ethics Committee of Redland Hospital at Bayside Health Service District in Queensland, Australia, and explores health professionals’ understanding of the nature of ethics and their experience with ethical decision-making within an acute medical ward. This study focuses on the actual experience, understanding and attitudes of clinical professionals in a general medical ward. In particular, the discussion explores the specific findings from the study concerned with how a multi-disciplinary team of health professionals define and operationalise the notion of ethics in an acute ward hospital setting. The key issue reported is that health professionals are not only able to clearly articulate notions of ethics, but that the notions expressed by a multi-disciplinary diversity of participants share a common definitional concept of ethics as patient-centred care. The central finding is that all professional groups indicated that there is a guiding principle to address their ethical sense of the ‘good’ or the ‘ought’ and that is to act in a way that furthered the interests of patients and their families. The findings affirm the importance of a sociological perspective as a productive new direction in bioethical research.     

The intellectual basis of bioethics in Southern European countries

Today the Western world harbors, at least, three very different ethical traditions, each with its own characteristics: the Anglo-Saxon, the Northern (or Central) European, and the Mediterranean. Because modern bioethics made its appearance in the Anglo-American culture, Europeans in general, and Mediterraneans in particular, have attempted not simply to "import" or "translate" bioethics, but rather to "recreate" or "remake" the discipline according to their own cultural and ethical traditions. In my presentation, I would like to explain the peculiarities of Mediterranean bioethics, analyzing the following seven points: First, how they think bioethics should be philosophically founded; Second, the Mediterranean ethics of virtue and the doctor-patient relationship; Third, the relationship between Ethics and Law; Fourth, Health Care Systems and Ethics, Fifth, the problems concerning patient rights; Sixth, ethics by Committees; and finally, some general conclusions.     

Leishmaniasis and poverty

Leishmaniasis, a neglected tropical disease, has strong but complex links with poverty. The burden of leishmaniasis falls disproportionately on the poorest segments of the global population. Within endemic areas, increased infection risk is mediated through poor housing conditions and environmental sanitation, lack of personal protective measures and economically driven migration and employment that bring nonimmune hosts into contact with infected sand flies. Poverty is associated with poor nutrition and other infectious diseases, which increase the risk that a person (once infected) will progress to the clinically manifested disease. Lack of healthcare access causes delays in appropriate diagnosis and treatment and accentuates leishmaniasis morbidity and mortality, particularly in women. Leishmaniasis diagnosis and treatment are expensive and families must sell assets and take loans to pay for care, leading to further impoverishment and reinforcement of the vicious cycle of disease and poverty. Public investment in treatment and control would decrease the leishmaniasis disease burden and help to alleviate poverty.     

A moderate Buddhist animal research ethics

Though there is a burgeoning interest in applied Buddhist ethics, Buddhist animal research ethics remains an underdeveloped area. In this paper I will explore how some central Buddhist ethical considerations can usefully engage our use of other animals (henceforth, animals) in science. As the scientific use of animals is broad, I will narrow my focus to laboratory science. I will show that, though a Buddhist abolitionism would not be unmotivated, it is possible to reject it. While doing so, it will be important to resist emphasizing elements of Buddhist thought that merely provide reasons to adopt the dominant ethical framework governing laboratory animal research ethics, known as the 3Rs. Though I will suggest how a Buddhist animal research ethics can sometimes permit the use of animals in harmful research, it will also require ethical constraints that resonate with some of the more progressive elements in ‘Western’ bioethics.     

Ethical problems in conducting research in acute epidemics: the Pfizer meningitis study in Nigeria as an illustration

The ethics of conducting research in epidemic situations have yet to account fully for differences in the proportion and acuteness of epidemics, among other factors. While epidemics most often arise from infectious diseases, not all infectious diseases are of epidemic proportions, and not all epidemics occur acutely. These and other variations constrain the generalization of ethical decision-making and impose ethical demands on the individual researcher in a way not previously highlighted. This paper discusses a number of such constraints and impositions. It applies the ethical principles enunciated by Emmanuel et al. ¹ to the controversial Pfizer study in Nigeria in order to highlight the particular ethical concerns of acute epidemic research, and suggest ways of meeting such challenges.
The paper recommends that research during epidemics should be partly evaluated on its own merits in order to determine its ethical appropriateness to the specific situation. Snap decisions to conduct research during acute epidemics should be resisted. Community engagement, public notification and good information management are needed to promote the ethics of conducting research during acute epidemics. Individual consent is most at risk of being compromised, and every effort should be made to ensure that it is maintained and valid. Use of data safety management boards should be routine. Acute epidemics also present opportunities to enhance the social value of research and maximize its benefits to communities.
Ethical research is possible in acute epidemics, if the potential challenges are thought of ahead of time and appropriate precautions taken.     

Anthropological and Sociological Critiques of Bioethics

Anthropologists and sociologists offer numerous critiques of bioethics. Social scientists criticize bioethicists for their arm-chair philosophizing and socially ungrounded pontificating, offering philosophical abstractions in response to particular instances of suffering, making all-encompassing universalistic claims that fail to acknowledge cultural differences, fostering individualism and neglecting the importance of families and communities, and insinuating themselves within the “belly” of biomedicine. Although numerous aspects of bioethics warrant critique and reform, all too frequently social scientists offer ungrounded, exaggerated criticisms of bioethics. Anthropological and sociological critiques of bioethics are hampered by the tendency to equate bioethics with clinical ethics and moral theory in bioethics with principlist bioethics. Also, social scientists neglect the role of bioethicists in addressing organizational ethics and other “macro-social” concerns. If anthropologists and sociologists want to provide informed critiques of bioethics they need to draw upon research methods from their own fields and develop richer, more informed analyses of what bioethicists say and do in particular social settings.     

医学研究伦理学的发展现状与前景

创新技术的开展和转化医学的注重给医学的发展注入了新的活力,但同时,也带来了一系列社会伦理问题和法律问题。生命医学伦理学的兴起和发展催生了医学研究伦理学分支学科形成,目的在于推进解决涉及人体的医学研究的伦理问题。当前,面临的最突出的伦理问题在于,对医学研究合法性、先进性及伦理性的把握,对医学研究伦理审查必要性的认知,对医学研究方案设计与伦理道德的匹配,对医学研究知情同意的告知,对医学研究风险与受益的平衡。逐步与国际接轨,加强伦理委员会制度建设;提高伦理审查能力建设,形成高水平的伦理审查队伍;学术组织和团体共同努力,推进医学研究伦理学的发展,这将助推医学研究伦理学的发展。     

Don't Blame the ‘Bio’ — Blame the ‘Ethics’: Varieties of (bio) ethics and the challenge of pluralism

We tend to think that the difficulties in bioethics spring from the novel and alarming issues that arise due to discoveries in the new biosciences and biotechnologies. But many of the crucial difficulties in bioethics arise from the assumption we make about ethics. This paper offers a brief overview of bioethics, and relates ethical 'principlism' to 'ethical fundamentalism.' It then reviews some alternative approaches that have emerged during the second phase of bioethics and argues for a neo-Aristotelian approach. Misconceptions about ethical principles and ethical reasoning not only distort our views of the business of bioethics, but they also prevent us from facing up to the formidable problems posed by ethical pluralism in so-called liberal societies.     

Empirical research in clinical ethics: The ‘committed researcher’ approach

After the ‘empirical turn’ in bioethics, few specific approaches have been developed for doing clinical ethics research in close connection with clinical decision-making on a daily basis. In this paper we describe the ‘committed researcher’ approach to research in clinical ethics that we have developed over the years. After comparing it to two similar research methodological approaches, the ‘embedded researcher’ and ‘deliberative engagement’, we highlight its main features: it is patient-oriented, it is implemented by collegial and multidisciplinary teams, it uses an ethical grid to build the interview guide, and it is geared towards bringing the results to bear on the public debate surrounding the issue at stake. Finally, we position our methodological approach with respect to the ‘is vs. ought’ distinction. We argue that our ‘commitment researcher’ approach to clinical ethics research takes concerned people’s life-building values as the main data, and compares them to the larger normative framework underlying the medical practice at stake.     

Instructors' practices in and attitudes toward teaching ethics in the genetics classroom

There is strong consensus among educators that training in the ethical and social consequences of science is necessary for the development of students into the science professionals and well-rounded citizens needed in the future. However, this part of the curriculum is not a major focus of most science departments and it is not clear if, or how, students receive this training. To determine the current status of bioethics education of undergraduate biology students in the United States, we surveyed instructors of introductory genetics. We found that there was support for more ethics education both in the general curriculum and in the genetics classroom than is currently being given. Most instructors devote <5% of class time to ethical and social issues in their genetics courses. The majority feels that this is inadequate treatment of these topics and most cited lack of time as a major reason they were unable to give more attention to bioethics. We believe biology departments should take the responsibility to ensure that their students are receiving a balanced education. Undergraduate students should be adequately trained in ethics either within their science courses or in a specialized course elsewhere in the curriculum.