Given the evolution of the public health (PH) and the changes from the phenomenon of globalization, this area has encountered new ethical challenges. In order to find a coherent approach to address ethical issues in PH policy, this study aimed to identify the evolution of public health ethics (PHE) frameworks and the main moral values and norms in PH practice and policy. According to the research questions, a systematic search of the literature, in English, with no time limit was performed (...) using the main keywords in databases Web of Science (ISI) and PubMed. Finally, the full text of 56 papers was analyzed. Most of the frameworks have common underpinning assumptions and beliefs, and the need to balance PH moral obligation to prevent harm and health promotion with respect for individual autonomy has been specified. As such, a clear shift from liberal values in biomedical ethics is seen toward the community’s collective values in PHE. The main moral norms in PH practice and policy included protecting the population against harm and improving PH benefits, utility and evidenced-based effectiveness, distributive justice and fairness, respect for all, privacy and confidentiality, solidarity, social responsibility, community empowerment and participation, transparency, accountability and trust. Systematic review of PHE frameworks indicates utilization of the aforementioned moral norms through an practical framework as an ethical guide for action in the PH policy. The validity of this process requires a systematic approach including procedural conditions. (shrink)

Background The field of bioethics examines the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise in the biological sciences, healthcare, and medical practices. There has been a rise in medical negligence cases, complaints against healthcare workers, and public dissatisfaction with healthcare professionals, according to reports from the Indian Medical Council and other healthcare associations. We intend to assess the level of knowledge, attitude, and practice of bioethics among the registered healthcare professionals (HCPs) of Maharashtra, India. Methods A State-level online survey was conducted (...) among the registered HCPs (n = 2143) casing all five regions of the Maharashtra state using a pre-tested self-administered questionnaire. The responses were expressed as mean, and proportions with their standard deviation and 95% CI respectively. Binary logistic regression and a multivariate logistic model were used to determine factors associated with knowledge, attitude, and practice of bioethics. Results Of the 2143 registered HCPs in Maharashtra included in this study, most of them (65.2%) had adequate knowledge of bioethics. Adequate knowledge was associated with lower age, profession (nurses and dentists), employment in the private sector, HCPS at Marathwada and Pune, and higher educational attainment. About 3 in 5 HCPs (59.4%) had a favorable attitude towards the ethical practice of bioethics, and was associated with profession, place of work, region of practice, and work experience. The distribution of unethical bioethics practices among 10 items was proportionally high, and only 34.4% reported good/fair practice. The common unethical practices in the state were allowing patients to be examined by interns, and not informing them about professional misconduct to the regulatory bodies. Conclusion Most HCPs had adequate knowledge of bioethics, which is encouraging and would favor the laying foundation for forming a good bioethics framework. Only 3/5 HCPs demonstrated a favorable attitude, and the observed unethical practice is alarmingly common. A serious consideration to evaluate the compliance level of bioethics practice periodically and measures to educate, sensitize, and train bioethics among HCPs in Maharashtra is warranted. (shrink)

A review of literature published a decade ago noted a significant increase in empirical papers across nine bioethics journals. This study provides an update on the presence of empirical papers in the same nine journals. It first evaluates whether the empirical trend is continuing as noted in the previous study, and second, how it is changing, that is, what are the characteristics of the empirical works published in these nine bioethics journals. A review of the same nine journals was conducted (...) for a 12-year period from 2004 to 2015. Data obtained was analysed descriptively and using a non-parametric Chi-square test. Of the total number of original papers published in the nine bioethics journals, 18.1% collected and analysed empirical data. Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics led the empirical publications, accounting for 89.4% of all empirical papers. The former published significantly more quantitative papers than qualitative, whereas the latter published more qualitative papers. Our analysis reveals no significant difference between the proportion of empirical papers published in 2004–2009 and 2010–2015. However, the increasing empirical trend has continued in these journals with the proportion of empirical papers increasing from 14.9% in 2004 to 17.8% in 2015. This study presents the current state of affairs regarding empirical research published nine bioethics journals. In the quarter century of data that is available about the nine bioethics journals studied in two reviews, the proportion of empirical publications continues to increase, signifying a trend towards empirical research in bioethics. The growing volume is mainly attributable to two journals: Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics. This descriptive study further maps the still developing field of empirical research in bioethics. Additional studies are needed to completely map the nature and extent of empirical research in bioethics to inform the ongoing debate about the value of empirical research for bioethics. (shrink)

The silencing of the epistemologies, theories, principles, values, concepts and experiences of the global South constitutes a particularly egregious epistemic injustice in bioethics. Our shared responsibility to rectify that injustice should be at the top of the ethics agenda. That it is not, or only is in part, is deeply problematic and endangers the credibility of the entire field. As a first step towards reorienting the field, this paper offers a comprehensive account of epistemic justice for global health ethics. We (...) first introduce several different conceptions of justice and decolonisation in relation to knowledge, purposefully drawing on work emanating from the global South as well as the global North. We then apply those conceptions to the global health ethics context to generate a tripartite account of the layers of epistemic justice in the field: who is producing ethics knowledge; what theories and concepts are being applied to produce ethics knowledge; and whose voices are sought, recorded and used to generate ethics knowledge. These layers reflect that the field spans conceptual and empirical research. We conclude by proposing that, going forward, three avenues are key to achieve greater epistemic justice at each layer and to help decolonise global health ethics: namely, understanding the problem, dialogue and structural change. (shrink)

Given that biases can distort bioethics work, it has received surprisingly little and fragmented attention compared to in other fields of research. This article provides an overview of potentially relevant biases in bioethics, such as cognitive biases, affective biases, imperatives, and moral biases. Special attention is given to moral biases, which are discussed in terms of (1) Framings, (2) Moral theory bias, (3) Analysis bias, (4) Argumentation bias, and (5) Decision bias. While the overview is not exhaustive and the taxonomy (...) by no means is absolute, it provides initial guidance with respect to assessing the relevance of various biases for specific kinds of bioethics work. One reason why we should identify and address biases in bioethics is that it can help us assess and improve the quality of bioethics work. (shrink)