Civil Liberties and Public Health Ethics: Utilitarianism, Biomedical Ethics, Liberalism, etc.

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-96
Author(s):  
Sang-Hyuk Park
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Biomedical Ethics ◽  
Public Health Ethics ◽  
Health Ethics

An Overview of Ethics and Environmental Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 697-703
Author(s):  
David B. Resnik
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Environmental Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Biomedical Ethics ◽  
Public Health Ethics ◽  
Social Utility ◽  
Toxic Substances ◽  
Health Ethics ◽  
Wide Range

This chapter provides an overview of the ethics of environmental health, and it introduces five chapters in the related section of The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics. A wide range of ethical issues arises in managing the relationship between human health and the environment, including regulation of toxic substances, air and water pollution, waste management, agriculture, the built environment, occupational health, energy production and use, environmental justice, population control, and climate change. The values at stake in environmental health ethics include those usually mentioned in ethical debates in biomedicine and public health, such as autonomy, social utility, and justice, as well as values that address environmental concerns, such as animal welfare, stewardship of biological resources, and sustainability. Environmental health ethics, therefore, stands at the crossroads of several disciplines, including public health ethics, environmental ethics, biomedical ethics, and business ethics.

scholarly journals The Ethics of Tobacco Harm Reduction: An Analysis of E-Cigarette Availability From the Perspectives of Utilitarianism, Bioethics, and Public Health Ethics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Thomas ◽  
Lisa S Parker ◽  
Saul Shiffman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Biomedical Ethics ◽  
Public Health Ethics ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Tobacco Harm Reduction ◽  
Reduction Strategy ◽  
Ethics Framework ◽  
Health Ethics ◽  
Harm Reduction Strategy

Abstract Much evidence suggests e-cigarettes are substantially less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Assuming this is true, we analyze the ethical case for a policy of e-cigarette availability (ECA) as a tobacco harm reduction strategy. ECA involves making e-cigarettes available to allow smokers to switch to them, and informing smokers of the lower risks of e-cigarettes vis-à-vis smoking. After suggesting that utilitarian/consequentialist considerations do not provide an adequate ethical analysis, we analyze ECA using two other ethical frameworks. First, ECA is supported by a public health ethics framework. ECA is a population-level intervention consistent with respecting individual autonomy by using the least restrictive means to accomplish public health goals, and it supports equity and justice. Second, ECA is supported by four principles that form a biomedical ethics framework. By reducing smokers’ health risks and not harming them, ECA fulfills principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Because ECA allows smokers to make informed health decisions for themselves, it fulfills the principle requiring respect for persons and their autonomy. Here, we consider whether nicotine addiction and thus ECA undermine autonomy, and also discuss the ethical warrant for special protections for youth. Finally, ECA can also advance justice by providing a harm reduction alternative for disadvantaged groups that disproportionately bear the devastating consequences of smoking. Policies of differential taxation of cigarettes and e-cigarettes can facilitate adoption of less harmful alternatives by those economically disadvantaged. We conclude that public health and biomedical ethics frameworks are mutually reinforcing and supportive of ECA as a tobacco harm reduction strategy. Implications Making e-cigarettes and information about them available is supported as ethical from multiple ethical perspectives.

Public Bioethics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James F. Childress
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Health Ethics ◽  
Task Forces ◽  
Health Ethics ◽  
Bioethical Issues ◽  
Policies And Practices

Doing public bioethics involves analyzing and assessing actual and proposed public policies regarding biomedicine, healthcare, and public health. “Public bioethics” also refers to commissions, councils, task forces, and the like, that are governmentally established, sponsored, or funded for the purpose of deliberating collectively about bioethical issues, again with a primary goal of recommending public policies. Most chapters in this book grow out of, some reflect on, and all are profoundly shaped by the author’s experiences as a participant in several public bioethics bodies, especially at the national level in the United States. The processes of publicly deliberating in such bodies about bioethical issues and appropriate policies and of publicly justifying collective recommendations have profoundly shaped this book. After examining respect for autonomy—both thin and thick conceptions—and paternalistic policies and practices, as well as the tensions between particular case judgments and general principles and rules, this book next examines the appropriate role of religious convictions in public bioethics and in public policy and in conscientious claims to exemptions from expectations to provide certain health-related services. The third section of the book focuses on public policies and practices in organ transplantation, particularly difficulties in determining death, in obtaining first-person consent for deceased organ donation, and in fairly allocating donated organs. The final section maps the terrain of public health ethics, argues for a presumptivist approach to justifying public health interventions that infringe civil liberties, proposes a framework of triage for public health crises, and recasts John Stuart Mill’s misunderstood legacy for public health ethics.

scholarly journals Solidarity as a Regulatory Principle for Digital Technologies Used in the Pandemic Response (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junhewk Kim ◽  
Eun Kyung Choi
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Social Trust ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Biomedical Ethics ◽  
Public Health Ethics ◽  
Epidemiological Methods ◽  
Technology Application ◽  
Health Ethics ◽  
Regulatory Principle ◽  
Pandemic Response

UNSTRUCTURED In addition to existing epidemiological methods, the on-going COVID-19 pandemic requires effective approaches for controlling the disease spread. The use of digital technologies has been discussed in this context, and digital contact tracing technology (DCTT) and vaccine passport are representative examples of such technologies. Ethical discussions on the application of these technologies have noted privacy breach and undermining social trust as concerns, arguing that these two aspects should be balanced with the public benefits of technology application. Discussions of digital technologies, including DCTT, as a pandemic response have called for a new perspective on existing public health ethics. This viewpoint paper proposes that applying solidarity as a regulatory principle to digital technologies can offer ways to pursue privacy and public interest as complementary instead of competitive values. Existing studies and discussions of digital technologies in the COVID-19 context were explored, particularly those focusing on the utilization and ethical aspects of DCTT. The development of solidarity in biomedical ethics and its application to public health ethics were also considered. The conclusion was reached that the acceptability of DCTT can increase when privacy is secured, which results in increased overall effectiveness of the technology. This can be achieved by applying solidarity as a regulatory principle, which requires individuals to participate, while empowering the privacy and social trust of participating individuals at the national level. Thus, this paper presents an ethical approach based on the principle of solidarity that reciprocates the interests of individuals and the collective instead of making them compete. This approach is expected to pave the way for an extended framework for both the pandemic response and digital approaches in public health that empower privacy and social trust.

An Overview of the Ethics of Injury in Public Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 597-603
Author(s):  
Adnan A. Hyder
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Injury Prevention ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Public Health Ethics ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Health Ethics ◽  
Prompt Attention ◽  
And Control

This chapter briefly introduces ethics issues in injury prevention and control in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), using a series of examples that prompt attention to the ethical principles of autonomy and justice. The chapter also introduces the section of The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics dedicated to an examination of injury and public health ethics, with attention given to the complex ethical challenges arising in injury prevention and control in LMICs. The section’s two chapters discuss public health ethics issues arising in the prevention and control of unintentional injuries and intentional injuries, respectively. Those chapters define a set of ethics issues within international injury work and provide an initial analysis of the nature of those ethics issues, their specificity, and potential pathways for addressing them.

scholarly journals Innovative methods in teaching public health ethics. The need to adapt to the new times: from challenge to opportunity

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Buron Pust ◽  
A Segura
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Teaching Strategies ◽  
Flipped Classroom ◽  
Role Playing ◽  
Public Health Ethics ◽  
Master Of Public Health ◽  
Health Ethics ◽  
Parliamentary Debate ◽  
Massive Online Open Courses ◽  
Open Courses

Abstract Background Public Health Ethics (PHE) has been taught first as optional and later as a mandatory subject in the Master of Public Health in Barcelona for about 6 years. During these years, professors have adapted the methodology to make it more attractive and to maximize students' participation and time spent debating and practicing moral reasoning. Objectives To showcase 3 different teaching strategies or methods, presenting for each of them: resources required, outcomes so far in terms of satisfaction and exam performance, as well as the pros and cons from the teacher's perspective. Results Flipped-classroom strategy: theoretical content is delivered outside the classroom, and the practice into the classroom. Works well but needs incentives for compliance in reading. Versatile debating Methods: from parliamentary debate, to role-playing, online debate, etc. Depending on the Case-study, some work better than others; in the online they practice written deliberation skills, but it is important to set rules. MOOC: Massive Online Open Courses in PHE. Can be used as independent teaching material, it is a great tool to introduce PHE into other PH areas and non-teaching environments. Conclusions So far, these methods have proven to increase students' motivation and engagement in Public Health Ethics. Key messages Practising reflection and debating skills is an essential part of PHE. Modern teaching strategies, more interactive and online-based, can help maximising the time spent in these activities. Although challenging and time-consuming at first, these methods also increase students' interest in PHE.

A Public Health Ethics Model of Countering Violent Extremism

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 324-337
Author(s):  
Neil D. Shortland ◽  
Nicholas Evans ◽  
John Colautti
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Ethics ◽  
Health Ethics ◽  
Violent Extremism
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document