BackgroundIn June 2019, the Australian state of Victoria joined the growing number of jurisdictions around the world to have legalised some form of voluntary assisted dying. A discourse of safety was prominent during the implementation of the Victorian legislation.Main textIn this paper, we analyse the ethical relationship between legislative “safeguards” and equal access. Drawing primarily on Ruger’s model of equal access to health care services, we analyse the Victorian approach to voluntary assisted dying in terms of four dimensions: horizontal equity, (...) patient agency, high quality care, and supportive social norms. We argue that some provisions framed as safeguards in the legislation create significant barriers to equal access for eligible patients.ConclusionsWhile safety is undoubtedly ethically important, we caution against an overemphasis on safeguarding in voluntary assisted dying legislation given the implications for equal access. (shrink)

The topic of epistemic injustice in global health ethics is complex, important and vast. While presenting as nuanced and complete a picture of the challenge as we possibly could, we were acutely aware of our positionality and how it gave us a certain viewpoint that would need to be expanded by others with different positions and experiences. We were, therefore, delighted to receive the collected commentaries by Atuire,1 Abimbola,2 Frimpong-Mansoh,3 Nyamnjoh and Ewuoso,4 Tangwa,5 Ambrogi et al.6 We would like to (...) thank these authors for furthering our account by raising questions, pointing out gaps or complementing our analysis. The points raised by these authors—and many points that will undoubtedly be raised by others in future—should be critically engaged with as we collectively define and work towards a more epistemically just global health ethics. Specifically, two points stand out. First, Frimpong-Mansoh accurately diagnoses our ambiguity about being drawn into debates about relativism in bioethics. We …. (shrink)

Community engagement (CE) is gaining prominence in global health research. A number of ethical goals–spanning the instrumental, intrinsic, and transformative–have been ascribed to CE in global health research. This paper draws attention to an additional transformative value that CE is not typically linked to but that seems very relevant: solidarity. Both are concerned with building relationships and connecting parties that are distant from one another. This paper first argues that furthering solidarity should be recognized as another ethical goal for CE (...) in global health research. It contends that, over time, CE can build the bases of solidaristic relationships—moral imagination, recognition, understanding, empathy—between researchers and community members. Applying concepts from existing accounts of solidarity, the paper develops preliminary ideas about who should be engaged and how to advance solidarity. The proposed approach is compared to current CE practice in global health research. Finally, the paper briefly considers how solidaristic CE could affect how global health research is performed. (shrink)

In the Australian state of Victoria, legislation allowing voluntary assisted dying (VAD) passed through parliament in November 2017. There was then an eighteen-month period before the start date for patient access to VAD, referred to as the “implementation period.” The implementation period was intended to allow time for the relevant government department and affected organizations to develop processes before the Act came into effect in June 2019. This qualitative interview study investigates the perspectives of a multidisciplinary sample of twelve clinicians (...) from a single metropolitan hospital during this implementation period. Maximum variation sampling was utilized to ensure breadth across discipline (medical, nursing, allied health), speciality, and stated level of support for the VAD legislation. Four key themes were identified from the interview data: preparing for the unknown, ethical diversity within the organization, building a respectful culture, and concerns about the inability of the legislated approach to capture clinical nuances. Overall, these clinicians’ workplace experiences during the implementation period were shaped by the ethical diversity within their organization and a sense of uncertainty about how the VAD legislation would integrate with the practical realities of their clinical setting. The concept of “ethical diversity” could be a useful one for supporting staff in an organization during a VAD implementation period. (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)

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. So far, a philosophical rationale for why researchers should perform community engagement during such research has not been provided by ethics scholars. Its absence means that conducting community engagement is still often viewed as no more than a ‘good idea’ or ‘good practice’ rather than ethically required. In this article, we argue that shared health governance can establish grounds for requiring the engagement of low‐ and middle‐income country (LMIC) community members in (...) global health research, where such research aims to help reduce health disparities. This philosophical basis has important implications for the ethical goals ascribed to engagement and the approach adopted to undertake it. We suggest the ethical goals of engagement in equity‐oriented global health research should include: (a) generating research topics and questions that reflect the key problems disadvantaged groups face in accessing healthcare, services and broader social determinants of health and (b) promoting the translation of research findings into policy and practice in ways that benefit the health of disadvantaged groups. We propose engagement practice should have the following features: deliberation with LMIC community members to make a range of project decisions, beginning with setting research topics and questions; inclusion of members of disadvantaged groups and those with the power to change policy and practice to benefit them; and purposeful structuring of deliberations to minimize the impact of power disparities between LMIC community members. Finally, we reflect on how these features differ from those typical of much current community engagement practice in LMICs. (shrink)

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. Theories of justice from political philosophy establish obligations for parties from high-income countries owed to parties from low and middle-income countries. We have developed a new framework that is based on Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm to strengthen the link between international clinical research and justice in global health. The ‘research for health justice’ framework provides direction on three aspects of international clinical research: (...) the research target, research capacity strengthening, and post-trial benefits. It identifies the obligations of justice owed by national governments, research funders, research sponsors, and investigators to trial participants and host communities. These obligations vary from those currently articulated in international research ethics guidelines. Ethical requirements of a different kind are needed if international clinical research is to advance global health equity. (shrink)

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia of institutions from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries that undertake programs of research. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Although such consortia typically aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries, what is required for them to do so has not been clearly defined. This article takes a (...) conceptual approach to explore how the governance of transnational global health research consortia should be structured to advance health equity. To do so, it applies an account called shared health governance to derive procedural and substantive guidance. A checklist based on this guidance is proposed to assist research consortia determine where their governance practices strongly promote equity and where they may fall short. (shrink)

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. Theories of justice from political philosophy establish obligations for parties from high‐income countries owed to parties from low and middle‐income countries. We have developed a new framework that is based on Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm to strengthen the link between international clinical research and justice in global health. The ‘research for health justice’ framework provides direction on three aspects of international clinical research: (...) the research target, research capacity strengthening, and post‐trial benefits. It identifies the obligations of justice owed by national governments, research funders, research sponsors, and investigators to trial participants and host communities. These obligations vary from those currently articulated in international research ethics guidelines. Ethical requirements of a different kind are needed if international clinical research is to advance global health equity. (shrink)

This article investigates whether or not theories of justice from political philosophy, first, support the position that health research should contribute to justice in global health, and second, provide guidance about what is owed by international clinical research (ICR) actors to parties in low- and middle-income countries. Four theories—John Rawls's theory of justice, the rights-based cosmopolitan theories of Thomas Pogge and Henry Shue, and Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm—are evaluated. The article shows that three of the four theories require the (...) conduct of health research for justice in global health. The theories help identify the ends of justice to which ICR is to contribute, but they cannot tell us how to organize ICR to promote these ends. Aside from Ruger's health capability paradigm, the theories also lack an allocative principle for assigning specific duties to specific actors. This creates difficulties for establishing obligations for certain types of ICR actors. (shrink)

BackgroundRapid data sharing can maximize the utility of data. In epidemics and pandemics like Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19, the case for such practices seems especially urgent and warranted. Yet rapidly sharing data widely has previously generated significant concerns related to equity. The continued lack of understanding and guidance on equitable data sharing raises the following questions: Should data sharing in epidemics and pandemics primarily advance utility, or should it advance equity as well? If so, what norms comprise equitable data sharing (...) in epidemics and pandemics? Do these norms address the equity-related concerns raised by researchers, data providers, and other stakeholders? What tensions must be balanced between equity and other values?MethodsTo explore these questions, we undertook a systematic scoping review of the literature on data sharing in epidemics and pandemics and thematically analyzed identified literature for its discussion of ethical values, norms, concerns, and tensions, with a particular emphasis on equity. We wanted to both understand how equity in data sharing is being conceptualized and draw out other important values and norms for data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.ResultsWe found that values of utility, equity, solidarity, and reciprocity were described, and we report their associated norms, including researcher recognition; rapid, real-time sharing; capacity development; and fair benefits to data generators, data providers, and source countries. The value of utility and its associated norms were discussed substantially more than others. Tensions between utility norms and equity norms were raised.ConclusionsThis study found support for equity being advanced by data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. However, norms for equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics require further development, particularly in relation to power sharing and participatory approaches prioritizing inclusion. Addressing structural inequities in the wider global health landscape is also needed to achieve equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. (shrink)

It has been suggested that community advisory boards can play a role in minimising exploitation in international research. To get a better idea of what this requires and whether it might be achievable, the paper first describes core elements that we suggest must be in place for a CAB to reduce the potential for exploitation. The paper then examines a CAB established by the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit under conditions common in resource-poor settings – namely, where individuals join with a (...) very limited understanding of disease and medical research and where an existing organisational structure is not relied upon to serve as the CAB. Using the Tak Province Border Community Ethics Advisory Board as a case study, we assess the extent to which it might be able to take on a role minimising exploitation were it to decide to do so. We investigate whether, after two years in operation, T-CAB is capable of assessing clinical trials for exploitative features and addressing those found to have them. The findings show that, although T-CAB members have gained knowledge and developed capacities that are foundational for one-day taking on a role to reduce exploitation, their ability to critically evaluate studies for the presence of exploitative elements has not yet been strongly demonstrated. In light of this example, we argue that CABs may not be able to perform such a role for a number of years after initial formation, making it an unsuitable responsibility for many short-term CABs. (shrink)

Scholarship focusing on how international research can contribute to justice in global health has primarily explored requirements for the conduct of clinical trials. Yet health systems research in low- and middle-income countries has increasingly been identified as vital to the reduction of health disparities between and within countries. This paper expands an existing ethical framework based on the health capability paradigm – research for health justice – to externally-funded health systems research in LMICs. It argues that a specific form of (...) health systems research in LMICs is required if the enterprise is to advance global health equity. “Research for health justice” requirements for priority setting, research capacity strengthening, and post-study benefits in health systems research are derived in light of the field's distinctive characteristics. Specific obligations are established for external research actors, including governments, funders, sponsors, and investigators. How these framework requirements differ from those for international clinical research is discussed. (shrink)

We are in the midst of a global crisis of climate change and environmental degradation to which the healthcare sector directly contributes. Yet conceptions of health justice have little to say about the environment. They purport societies should ensure adequate health for their populations but fail to require doing so in ways that avoid environmental harm or injustice. We need to expand our understanding of health justice to consider the environment and do so without reinforcing the epistemic injustice inherent in (...) the field of bioethics. This paper considers what work in philosophy related to the environment should be applied to help build that understanding and develops ideas about the healthcare sector’s responsibilities of justice to the environment. It first introduces the dominant multivalent environmental and ecological justice (EJ) concept in philosophy and each of its dimensions: distribution, participation, recognition and well-being. It then shows why applying that conception alone to broaden our understanding of health justice will reinforce epistemic injustice within bioethics. Drawing on EJ literature from the global South, the paper demonstrates that different ontological and experiential starting points identify additional EJ dimensions—power and harmony—and give rise to a nuanced understanding of the recognition dimension relative to the dominant EJ conception. The paper concludes by applying them to articulate healthcare sector responsibilities of justice to the environment, demonstrating they ground responsibilities beyond reducing its carbon emissions. (shrink)

International research is an essential means of reducing health disparities between and within countries and should do so as a matter of global justice. Research funders from high-income countries have an obligation of justice to support health research in low and middle-income countries that furthers such objectives. This paper investigates how their current funding schemes are designed to incentivise health systems research in LMICs that promotes health equity. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were performed with 16 grants officers working for 11 funders (...) and organisations that support health systems research: the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Comic Relief, Doris Duke Foundation, European Commission, International Development Research Centre, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Research Council of Norway, Rockefeller Foundation, UK Department of International Development, UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust. Thematic analysis of the data demonstrates their funding schemes promote health systems research with five key features that advance health equity: being conducted with worst-off populations, focusing on research topics that advance equitable health systems, having LMIC ownership of the research agenda, strengthening LMIC research capacity, and having an impact on health disparities. The different types of incentives that encouraged proposed projects to have these features are identified and classified by their strength. It is suggested that research funders ought to create and maintain funding schemes with strong incentives for the features identified above in order to more effectively help reduce global health disparities. (shrink)

The ethics of health incentive research—a form of public health research—are not well developed, and concerns of justice have been least examined. In this paper, we explore what potential long term harms in relation to justice may occur as a result of such research and whether they should be considered as part of its ethical evaluation. ‘Long term harms’ are defined as harms that contribute to existing systematic patterns of disadvantage for groups. Their effects are experienced on a long term (...) basis, persisting even once an incentive research project ends. We will first establish that three categories of such harms potentially arise as a result of health incentive interventions. We then argue that the risk of these harms also constitutes a morally relevant consideration for health incentive research and suggest who may be responsible for assessing and mitigating these risks. We propose that responsibility should be assigned on the basis of who initiates health incentive research projects. Finally, we briefly describe possible strategies to prevent or mitigate the risk of long term harms to members of disadvantaged groups, which can be employed during the design, conduct and dissemination of research projects. (shrink)

Undertaking engagement in public health research is ethically essential. There is a growing emphasis on practicing engagement as the co‐construction of knowledge, which goes beyond other common forms of engagement in health research practice: consulting and informing. Taking such an approach means researchers jointly construct knowledge with research users and beneficiaries; all parties design and conduct research together and share decision‐making power. This article makes the normative argument that such engagement is necessary to achieve the foundational moral aims of public (...) health research—building relations of equality and addressing the health needs of those considered disadvantaged—which reflect the field's underlying commitment to social justice. It next identifies and discusses three ways in which co‐constructing knowledge advances those moral aims: by facilitating self‐determination, supporting individuals’ right to research, and maximizing social knowledge to address cognitive and epistemic injustice. Objections to the arguments presented in the article are then articulated and defended against. (shrink)

Recent scholarship has considered what, if anything, rich people owe to poor people to achieve justice in global health and the implications of this for international research. Yet this work has primarily focused on international clinical research. Health systems research is increasingly being performed in low and middle income countries and is essential to reducing global health disparities. This paper provides an initial description of the ethical issues related to priority setting, capacity-building, and the provision of post-study benefits that arise (...) during the conduct of such research. It presents a selection of issues discussed in the health systems research literature and argues that they constitute ethical concerns based on their being inconsistent with a particular theory of global justice (the health capability paradigm). Issues identified include the fact that priority setting for health systems research at the global level is often not driven by national priorities and that capacity-building efforts frequently utilize one-size-fits-all approaches. (shrink)

Thus far, little work in bioethics has specifically focused on global health research priority-setting. Yet features of global health research priority-setting raise ethical considerations and concerns related to health justice. For example, such processes are often exclusively disease-driven, meaning they rely heavily on burden of disease considerations. They, therefore, tend to undervalue non-biomedical research topics, which have been identified as essential to helping reduce health disparities. In recognition of these ethical concerns and the limited scholarship and dialogue addressing them, we (...) convened an international workshop in September 2015. The workshop aimed to initiate discussion on the appropriate relationship between global and national levels of health research priority-setting and to begin exploring what might be ethically required for priority-setting at each of those levels. This paper comprises our reflections following the workshop. Its main objective is to launch a research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting. We identify three domains of global health research priority-setting—scope, underlying values and substantive requirements, and procedural considerations. For each domain, specific research questions are highlighted and why they need to be explored is explained. Some preliminary thoughts and normative arguments as to how the research questions might be answered are also offered. For example, we provide initial ideas about the appropriate relationship between different priority-setting levels and what values and substantive considerations should guide or underpin global health research priority-setting as a matter of justice. We anticipate that framing a new research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting will spur ethicists, researchers, and policymakers to refocus their efforts on developing more rigorous and ethically sound approaches to priority-setting. (shrink)

Background There is now rising consensus that community engagement is ethically and scientifically essential for all types of health research. Yet debate continues about the moral aims, methods and appropriate timing in the research cycle for community engagement to occur, and whether the answer should vary between different types of health research. Co-design and collaborative partnership approaches that involve engagement during priority-setting, for example, are common in many forms of applied health research but are not regular practice in biomedical research. (...) In this study, we empirically examine the normative question: should communities be engaged when setting priorities for biomedical research projects, and, if so, how and for what purpose? Methods We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 members of the biomedical research community from the UK, Australia, and African countries who had engaged communities in their work. Interview data were thematically analysed. Results Our study shows that biomedical researchers and community engagement experts strongly support engagement in biomedical research priority-setting, except under certain circumstances where it may be harmful to communities. However, they gave two distinct responses on what ethical purpose it should serve—either empowerment or instrumental goals—and their perspectives on how it should achieve those goals also varied. Three engagement approaches were suggested: community-initiated, synergistic, and consultative. Pre-engagement essentials and barriers to meaningful engagement in biomedical research priority-setting are also reported. Conclusions This study offers initial evidence that meaningful engagement in priority-setting should potentially be defined slightly differently for biomedical research relative to certain types of applied health research and that engagement practice in biomedical research should not be dominated by instrumental goals and approaches, as is presently the case. (shrink)

Engaging citizens is vital to achieving people‐centred health research. This paper aims to put attention to dynamics of power and dynamics of difference back at the centre of citizen engagement in health research priority‐setting. Without attention to power and difference, engagement can lead to presence without voice and voice without influence, particularly for disadvantaged and marginalised groups. By analysing six key bodies of literature, the paper first identifies the different components of engagement—who initiates, for what purpose, who participates, and how (...) they participate—and the dynamics of power and dynamics of difference relevant to them. For each component of engagement, the ethical considerations relating to those dimensions of power and dimensions of difference are characterised for the research priority‐setting context and preliminary guidance on how they might be addressed is provided. An initial framework comprised of a series of questions reflecting these ethical considerations has been developed for use by researchers and citizens when designing engagement processes for research projects. Where researchers and citizens attend to the framework's questions and then revise their priority‐setting processes’ design to better represent diversity and mitigate power disparities, more inclusive citizen engagement is promoted. Disadvantaged and marginalised groups are more likely to be present and heard, which, in turn, will help generate research projects with topics and questions that encompass and more accurately reflect their health needs. (shrink)

Bioethicists have long debated the content of sponsors and researchers' obligations of justice in international clinical research. However, there has been little empirical investigation as to whether and how obligations of responsiveness, ancillary care, post-trial benefits and research capacity strengthening are upheld in low- and middle-income country settings. In this paper, the authors argue that research ethics guidelines need to be more informed by international research practice. Practical guidance on how to fulfil these obligations is needed if research groups and (...) other actors are to successfully translate them into practice because doing so is often a complicated, context-specific process. Case study research methods offer one avenue for collecting data to develop this guidance. The authors describe how such methods have been used in relation to the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit's vivax malaria treatment (VHX) trial (NCT01074905). Relying on the VHX trial example, the paper shows how information can be gathered from not only international clinical researchers but also trial participants, community advisory board members and research funder representatives in order to: (1) measure evidence of responsiveness, provision of ancillary care, access to post-trial benefits and research capacity strengthening in international clinical research; and (2) identify the contextual factors and roles and responsibilities that were instrumental in the fulfilment of these ethical obligations. Such empirical work is necessary to inform the articulation of obligations of justice in international research and to develop guidance on how to fulfil them in order to facilitate better adherence to guidelines' requirements. (shrink)

We are in the midst of a crisis of climate change and environmental degradation that will only get worse, unless significant changes are rapidly made. Globally, the healthcare sector causes a large share of our total environmental footprint: 4.4% of greenhouse gases. Sustainable healthcare has emerged as a way for healthcare sectors in high‐income countries to help mitigate climate change by reducing their emissions. Whether global health should be sustainable and what ethical grounds might exist to support such a claim (...) are not questions that have been investigated. The paper argues that global health practice—the delivery of health services to underserved populations in resource‐poor areas of the world—should be sustainable as a matter of climate justice and solidarity. Reducing climate change‐related risks and harms for the vulnerable is integral to the mission of global health and thus it is necessary to consider the climate impact of its practice. The field has a duty to provide sustainable health services that are responsive to climate change‐related changes in the local burden of disease and to build sustainable health system infrastructure. Specific responsibilities for global health funders, managers, and implementers to uphold the duty are proposed. To conclude, the paper considers what limits might be placed on the duty to deliver sustainable global healthcare. (shrink)

Engagement in health research is increasingly practised worldwide. Yet many questions remain under debate in the ethics field about its contribution to health research and these debates have largely not been informed by those who have been engaged in health research. This paper addresses the following key questions: what should the ethical goals of engagement in health research be and how should it be performed? Qualitative data were generated by interviewing 22 people with lived experience, members of the public, and (...) engagement managers about power sharing in health research. Thematic analysis of study data identified the following five themes: the value of engagement in research, ideal engagement, tokenistic engagement, terms to describe those engaged, and engagement roles in research. The paper presents that data and then considers what insights it offers for what engagement should look like—its ethical goals and approach—according to those being engaged. (shrink)

Debates about justice in international clinical research problematically conflate two quite different forms of obligation. International research ethics guidelines were intended to describe how to conduct biomedical research in a just manner at the micro or clinical level (within the researcher-participant interaction) but have come to include requirements that are clearly intended to promote justice at the global level. Ethicists have also made a variety of claims regarding what international research should contribute to global justice. This paper argues that the (...) conflation of debates about justice at the micro and macro-levels has not only resulted in the placement of obligations upon the wrong actors but has also served to exclude relevant actors from the ethical picture. Suggestions for who should properly bear macro-level obligations of justice in international clinical research are offered. The paper further contends that, unlike researchers who violate informed consent requirements, no similar type of accountability exists for obligations of global justice, even for those obligation-bearers (incorrectly) identified by current ethics guidelines. (shrink)

In response to calls to expand the scope of research ethics to address justice in global health, recent scholarship has sought to clarify how external research actors from high-income countries might discharge their obligation to reduce health disparities between and within countries. An ethical framework—‘research for health justice’—was derived from a theory of justice (the health capability paradigm) and specifies how international clinical research might contribute to improved health and research capacity in host communities. This paper examines whether and how (...) external funders, sponsors, and researchers can fulfill their obligations under the framework. (shrink)

BackgroundEngagement of people with lived experience and members of the public is an ethically and scientifically essential component of health research. Authentic engagement means they are involved as full partners in research projects. Yet engagement as partnership is uncommon in practice, especially during priority-setting for research projects. What is needed for agenda-setting to be shared by researchers and people with lived experience and/or members of the public (or organisations representing them)? At present, little ethical guidance exists on this matter, particularly (...) that which has been informed by the perspectives of people with lived experience and members of the public. This article provides initial evidence about what they think are essential foundations and barriers to shared decision-making in health research priority-setting and health research more broadly.MethodsAn exploratory, qualitative study was conducted in 2019. 22 semi-structured interviews were performed with key informants from the UK and Australia.ResultsThree main types of foundations were thought to be essential to have in place before shared decision-making can occur in health research priority-setting: relational, environmental, and personal. Collectively, the three types of foundations addressed many (but not all) of the barriers to power sharing identified by interviewees.ConclusionsBased on study findings, suggestions are made for what researchers, engagement practitioners, research institutions, and funders should do in their policy and practice to support meaningful engagement. Finally, key international research ethics guidelines on community engagement are considered in light of study findings. (shrink)

Health research has been identified as a vehicle for advancing global justice in health. However, in bioethics, issues of global justice are mainly discussed within an ongoing debate on the conditions under which international clinical research is permissible. As a result, current ethical guidance predominantly links one type of international research (biomedical) to advancing one aspect of health equity (access to new treatments). International guidelines largely fail to connect international research to promoting broader aspects of health equity – namely, healthier (...) social environments and stronger health systems. Bioethical frameworks such as the human development approach do consider how international clinical research is connected to the social determinants of health but, again, do so to address the question of when international clinical research is permissible. It is suggested that the narrow focus of this debate is shaped by high-income countries' economic strategies. The article further argues that the debate's focus obscures a stronger imperative to consider how other types of international research might advance justice in global health. Bioethics should consider the need for non-clinical health research and its contribution to advancing global justice. (shrink)

Universal health coverage is often implemented within countries through several national insurance schemes that collectively cover their populations. Yet the extent of services and benefits available can vary substantially between different schemes. This paper argues that these variations in coverage comprise tiering and then reviews different accounts of health and social justice that consider whether and when a tiered health system is fair. Using these accounts, it shows that the fairness of tiering can be determined by assessing whether differences in (...) coverage mean enrolees under some national insurance schemes do not achieve sufficient health or normal functioning and/or feel inferior relative to those belonging to other national insurance schemes. The paper further contends that these determinations of fairness should involve the people covered by different insurance schemes. Key universal health coverage questions to involve the public in answering are: Do the sum of differences between the schemes in your country generate feelings of unequal moral worth and/or mean enrolees struggle to achieve sufficient health or normal functioning? Which specific differences between health insurance schemes generate the greatest feelings of unequal moral worth in individuals? Which specific differences generate the greatest barriers to individuals achieving sufficient health or normal functioning? Rather than identifying which services to extend coverage to first, answering these questions will identify which disparities in services and benefits are the most morally urgent to address. Finally, some initial thoughts are offered on who from the public should be involved in making these decisions and how they might be involved as a matter of justice. (shrink)

The ethical concept of responsiveness has largely been interpreted in the context of international clinical research. In light of the increasing conduct of externally funded health systems research in low- and middle-income countries, this article examines how responsiveness might be understood for such research and how it can be applied. It contends that four features set HSR in LMICs apart from international clinical research: a focus on systems; being context-driven; being policy-driven; and being closely linked to development objectives. These features (...) support reinterpreting responsiveness for HSR in LMICs as responsiveness to systems needs, where health system performance assessments can be relied upon to identify systems needs, and/or responsiveness to systems priorities, which entails aligning research with HSR priorities set through country-owned processes involving national and sub-national policymakers from host countries. Both concepts may be difficult to achieve in practice. Country ownership is not an established fact for many countries and alignment to their priorities may be meaningless without it. It is argued that more work is, therefore, needed to identify strategies for how the responsiveness requirement can be ethically fulfilled for HSR in LMICs under non-ideal conditions such as where host countries have not set HSR priorities via country-owned processes. Embeddedness is proposed as one approach that could be the focus of further development. (shrink)

ABSTRACT:Cities are struggling to balance the moral imperatives of sustainable development, with equity and social justice often ignored and negatively impacted by climate change mitigation and adaptation. Yet, the nature of these impacts on social justice has not been comprehensively investigated and little ethical guidance exists on how to better promote social justice in urban climate change planning practice. This article addresses the normative question: How should urban climate change planning advance social justice? It gathers empirical literature documenting the inclusivity (...) and equity impacts of urban climate change planning and thematically analyses that literature for dimensions of social justice drawn from philosophical and urban justice theory. Study findings demonstrate that four characteristics of climate change planning in cities—underlying neoliberal ideology, unequal treatment, green gentrification, and exclusion from decisionmaking—comprise, create, or worsen social injustices across six dimensions. These characteristics are often interconnected and inseparable. Where neoliberal ideology guides urban climate change planning, the other three characteristics frequently occur as well. The article concludes by arguing that, at a minimum, urban planners and climate planners have an obligation of justice to avoid undertaking climate change planning that exhibits any of the four characteristics and to address injustices generated where planning has such characteristics. It further suggests that planners' negative obligations likely extend beyond this because the literature review revealed gaps in existing empirical data on the equity impacts of urban climate change planning. (shrink)

A transformation of global health research is urgently needed if it is to eliminate long‐standing structural inequities within the field and help reduce global health disparities. Ethics has a key role to play in fostering such a transformation: it can help identify what the transformation should entail. Yet, ethics scholarship linking global health research to greater equity and social justice has limited authority and capacity to do so for two related reasons: it largely fails to apply theories and concepts of (...) justice from the global South and it says little about whether or how to address the coloniality and epistemic injustices inherent within global health research. This paper develops a multidimensional social justice lens using social justice and decolonial theory from the global North and global South. This lens identifies five core dimensions of social justice: power, recognition, harmony, inclusion, and well‐being. This paper then applies the multidimensional lens to the global health research context. For each dimension of social justice, several key ways to transform global health research are identified and described. They include shifting control of global health research funding, education, conduct, and publishing away from the global North and making knowledge from the global South visible and valued. To conclude, potential objections are considered. (shrink)

Universities and research funders’ growing emphasis on community partnerships, engagement and outreach has seen a rise in collaborations between university researchers and staff of community organisations on research projects. What ethical issues and concerns are experienced as part of these collaborations has largely not been described, particularly from the perspective of COs. As part of a recent, broader qualitative study, several concerns arising during health research collaborations between COs and university researchers were captured during thematic analysis. The concerns were described (...) in semistructured interviews by four staff of three COs that work with marginalised groups in a high-income country. In this paper, the three concerns are taken as the starting point for ethical analysis. Interview data are first used to illustrate the three concerns: being restricted to a recruitment role in studies, reinforcement of stereotypes of marginalised groups and weakening CO-community relationships. The paper then explores why the concerns are morally troubling and demonstrates how each concern generates feelings of disrespect, creates harm, and/or reflects or reinforces unfairness or injustice. It concludes by proposing three ethical criteria for CO-researcher partnerships: fair division of labour, balancing CO advocacy goals with research goals and balancing CO service goals with research goals. Where researchers and COs discuss how to meet these criteria at the start and during research collaborations, it can potentially help mitigate or prevent the occurrence of the concerns described in this paper. (shrink)

BackgroundCommunities’ engagement in priority-setting is a key means for setting research topics and questions of relevance and benefit to them. However, without attention to dynamics of power and diversity, their engagement can be tokenistic. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities, particularly those considered disadvantaged and marginalised, in global health research priority-setting. This paper generates a comprehensive, empirically-based “ethical toolkit” to provide such guidance, further strengthening a previously proposed checklist version of the toolkit. (...) The toolkit places community engagement and power-sharing at the heart of priority-setting for global health research projects.MethodsA two part method was used to generate a revised toolkit. Part one was conceptual, consisting of novel analysis of empirical data (previously collected as part of the same overall project) to identify additional concepts relevant to power-sharing between researchers and communities in global health research priority-setting. Part two was empirical, seeking feedback on the initial checklist version of the toolkit in interviews with researchers, ethicists, community engagement practitioners, and community organisation staff.ResultsThe conceptual process identified two additional components of engagement and six additional features that affect who defines, who participates, and who is heard in research priority-setting. New ethical considerations related to sharing power in global health research priority-setting are articulated in relation to those components and features. Interviewees provided suggestions for revising the toolkit’s content and language. The implications of these suggestions and the analytic process for the toolkit are described.ConclusionsThe resultant toolkit is a reflective project planning aid for researchers and their community partners to employ before priority-setting is undertaken for global health research projects. It consists of three worksheets (to be completed collectively) and a companion document detailing how to use them. It is more comprehensive than the initial toolkit, as worksheet questions for discussion cover all phases of priority-setting. (shrink)

Health systems research is widely identified as an indispensable means to achieve the goal of health equity between and within countries. Numerous health systems research consortia comprised of institutions from high-income countries and low and middle-income countries are currently undertaking programs of research in LMICs. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Recent conceptual work has explored what features might be necessary for (...) health systems research consortia and their research programs to promote health equity. Identified features include selecting research priorities that focus on improving access to high-quality health services and/or financial protection for disadvantaged populations in LMICs and conducting research capacity strengthening that promotes the independent conduct of health systems research in LMICs. Yet, there has been no attempt to investigate whether existing consortia have such characteristics. This paper describes the results of a survey undertaken with health systems research consortia leaders worldwide to assess how consistent current practice is with the proposed ethical guidance. The findings suggest that consortia may be fairly well organised to promote health equity, but have scope for improvement, particularly in terms of achieving inclusive priority-setting. (shrink)

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia. Recent scholarship has proposed what features of governance may be necessary for these consortia to advance justice in global health. That guidance purports three elements of global health research consortia are essential — their research priorities, research capacity development strategies, research translation strategies — and should be structured to promote the health of the worst-off globally. This paper adopted a reflective equilibrium approach, testing the proposed ethical guidance against the (...) experience of a global health research consortium with equity objectives. Case study research was performed with Future Health Systems, a health systems research consortium funded over two phases. Data on FHS Phase-2 were gathered through in-depth interviews with steering committee members and junior researchers and collection of consortium-related documents. Thematic analysis of the data for consistency with the proposed guidance generated recommendations for how the guidance might be better articulated and identified areas where it could usefully be expanded. Factors facilitating FHS alignment with the ethical guidance were also identified, including early engagement and partnership with low and middle-income country stakeholders, the learning developed during FHS Phase-1, and aspects of the grant program funding it. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 8, August 2020, Page W14-W16.

Social justice has been identified as a foundational moral commitment for global health research ethics. Yet what a commitment to social justice means for community engagement in such research has not been critically examined. This paper draws on the rich social justice literature from political philosophy to explore the normative question: What should the ethical goals of community engagement be if it is to help connect global health research to social justice? Five ethical goals for community engagement are proposed that (...) promote well-being, agency, and self-development, particularly for those considered disadvantaged and marginalized. The paper also considers how key terms used in the proposed goals should be defined using existing theories of health and social justice. This analysis is done to give global health researchers and their partners a better idea of what the ethical goals mean. Patterns of convergence amongst different theories are identified that support relying on particular definitions of key terms. (shrink)

Funders (located primarily in high‐income countries) and high‐income country researchers have historically dominated decision‐making within global health research collaborations: from setting agendas and research design to determining how data are collected and analysed and what happens with findings and outputs. The ethical principle of shared decision‐making has been proposed as a way to help address these imbalances within collaborations and to reduce semicolonial and exploitative forms of global health research. It is important to be clear about what shared decision‐making means (...) in order to ensure that it is not done in a tokenistic, shallow way. Thus far, the principle’s content has not been examined and articulated in detail. This paper aims to start the process of delineating a concept of fair shared decision‐making as a minimum standard for global health research. Using two hypothetical case examples, the paper will demonstrate that global health research practice is often inconsistent with ideal shared decision‐making. In such instances, it can be difficult to decide whether shared decision‐making within collaborations is fair. The paper describes how the two cases do not meet criteria for unfair or non‐ideal shared decision‐making, despite having potentially morally troubling features. The nuances of these examples of research practice help to generate clearer ideas about how to judge fairness in shared decision‐making. The paper concludes by presenting ideas about when soft power can be fairly employed between high‐income‐country and low‐ and middle‐income‐country partners and what fair compromise agreements may look like in shared decision‐making. (shrink)

Background: The Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 passed into law in Victoria, Australia, on the 29 November 2017. Internationally, nurses have been shown to be intimately involved in patient care throughout the voluntary assisted dying process. However, there is a paucity of research exploring Australian nurses’ perspectives on voluntary assisted dying and, in particular, how Victorian nurses anticipate the implementation of this ethically controversial legislation will impact their professional lives. Objectives: To explore Victorian nurses’ expectations of the ethical and practical (...) impacts the voluntary assisted dying legislation will have on their professional lives. Research design: This qualitative study analysed nurses’ free text responses collected as part of a larger mixed methods online survey investigating staff views on the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act. Data were collected during the period between the passing of the voluntary assisted dying legislation and the start date and were analysed using inductive content analysis. Participants and research context: Free text survey responses were analysed from 1873 nurses employed across seven Victorian health services located in both metropolitan and regional areas of the state. Ethical considerations: The study obtained research ethics approval and all participants were informed of the voluntary and anonymous nature of their participation. Findings: This study identified three broad areas of Victorian nurses’ professional lives that they expected to be impacted by the implementation of voluntary assisted dying: professional identity, career development and workplace relationships. Conclusion: Participants anticipate diverse and nursing-specific impacts of the implementation of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria. Their insights can inform health services in jurisdictions considering or already implementing voluntary assisted dying, to develop policies, procedures and staff training programmes that safeguard the well-being and legal rights of their nursing staff. (shrink)

This article draws attention to the limited amount of scholarship on what constitutes fairness and equity in resource allocation to health research by individual funders. It identifies three key decisions of ethical significance about resource allocation that research funders make regularly and calls for prioritizing scholarship on those topics – namely, how health resources should be fairly apportioned amongst public health and health care delivery versus health research, how health research resources should be fairly allocated between health problems experienced domestically (...) versus other health problems typically experienced by disadvantaged populations outside the funder's country, and how domestic and non-domestic health research funding should be further apportioned to different areas, e.g. types of research and recipients. These three topics should be priorities for bioethics research because their outcomes have a substantial bearing on the achievement of health justice. The proposed agenda aims to move discussion on the ethics of health research funding beyond its current focus on the mismatch between worldwide basic and clinical research investment and the global burden of disease. Individual funders’ decision-making on whether and to what extent to allocate resources to non-domestic health research, health systems research, research on the social determinants of health, capacity development, and recipients in certain countries should also be the focus of ethical scrutiny. (shrink)

There is growing interest for a communitarian approach to the governance of genomics, and for such governance to be grounded in principles of justice, equity and solidarity. However, there is a near absence of conceptual studies on how communitarian-based principles, or values, may inform, support or guide the governance of genomics research. Given that solidarity is a key principle in Ubuntu, an African communitarian ethic and theory of justice, there is emerging interest about the extent to which Ubuntu could offer (...) guidance for the governance of genomics research in Africa. To this effect, we undertook a conceptual analysis of Ubuntu with the goal of identifying principles that could inform equity-oriented governance of genomics research. Solidarity, reciprocity, open sharing, accountability, mutual trust, deliberative decision-making and inclusivity were identified as core principles that speak directly to the different macro-level ethical issues in genomics research in Africa such as: the exploitation of study populations and African researchers, equitable access and use of genomics data, benefit sharing, the possibility of genomics to widen global health inequities and the fair distribution of resources such as intellectual property and patents. We use the identified the principles to develop ethical guidance for genomics governance in Africa. (shrink)