Public Health Ethics Framework Research Articles

Migration policies versus public health – the ethics of Covid-19 related movement restrictions for asylum seekers in reception centers in Greece in 2020

Background The emergency context of the Covid-19 pandemic necessitated the use of national and international public health measures of unprecedented scale to minimize mortality and morbidity, often in conflict with other principles and rights, such as the autonomy of individuals. Concerns have been voiced that for populations facing precarity, such as migrants, a disproportionate and unfair application of restrictive measures, deficient application of protective measures, and even enforcement of restrictive migration policies under the pretext of the pandemic has occurred. Methods Various principles have been proposed as moral foundations of public health interventions. The author used two public health ethics frameworks to examine the acceptability of movement restrictions on asylum seekers residing in refugee camps in Greece from March 2020 to October 2020. Results Most of the principles described in the frameworks for the ethical application of movement restrictions were not adhered to. Main concerns include that, measures were prolonged despite lack of evidence about their effectiveness to reduce morbidity and mortality, while posing severe and disproportionate burdens for this population. Conclusions An ethically acceptable public health response to Covid-19 is incompatible with certain living conditions of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants. The question of whether and if so the extent to which the discipline of public health inherently has the role of rectifying existing injustices and social inequalities when these can be convincingly related to health outcomes, is central to the design of public health interventions for these populations. The answer can exemplify the need to address moral and political determinants of health. It is essential for public health professionals to be aware of the moral theorizations that underpin their work, so as to ensure that their policies are aligned with those and to contribute to the debate that shapes these determinants.

Toward Consent in Molecular HIV Surveillance?: Perspectives of Critical Stakeholders

Background The emergence of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs as key features of the United States (US) HIV strategy since 2018 has caused major controversies. HIV surveillance programs that re-use individuals’ routinely collected clinical HIV data do not require consent on the basis that the public benefit of these programs outweighs individuals’ rights to opt out. However, criticisms of MHS/CDR have questioned whether expanded uses of HIV genetic sequence data for prevention reach beyond traditional public health ethics frameworks. This study aimed to explore views on consent within MHS/CDR among critical stakeholders. Methods In 2021 we interviewed 26 US HIV stakeholders who identified as being critical or concerned about the rollout of MHS/CDR. Stakeholders included participants belonging to networks of people living with HIV, other advocates, academics, and public health professionals. This analysis focused on identifying the range of positions among critical and concerned stakeholders on consent affordances, opt-outs, how to best inform people living with HIV about how data about them are used in public health programs, and related ethical issues. Results Participants were broadly supportive of introducing some forms of consent into MHS/CDR. However, they differed on the specifics of implementing consent. While some participants did not support introducing consent affordances, all supported the idea that people living with HIV should be informed about how HIV surveillance and prevention is conducted and how individuals’ data are used. Conclusions MHS/CDR has caused sustained controversy. Among critical stakeholders, consent is generally desirable but contested, although the right for people living with HIV to be informed was centrally supported. In an era of big data-driven public health interventions and routine uses of HIV genetic sequence data in surveillance and prevention, CDC and other agencies should revisit public health ethics frameworks and consider the possibility of consent processes.

Why ethical frameworks fail to deliver in a pandemic: Are proposed alternatives an improvement?

In the past decade, numerous ethical frameworks have been developed to support public health decision-making in challenging areas. Before the COVID-19 pandemic began, members of the authorship team were involved in research programmes, in which the development of ethical frameworks was planned, to guide (a) the use of new technologies for emerging infectious disease surveillance; and (b) the allocation of scarce supplies of pandemic influenza vaccine. However, as the pandemic evolved, significant practical challenges emerged that led to our questioning the value of these frameworks. We now believe that a normative instrument, such as a framework, cannot adequately or reliably provide the ethical guidance that needs to be incorporated into public health decision-making during natural disasters or infectious disease emergencies. Recently it has been suggested that there are potentially more dynamic, flexible, and effective ways to navigate decisions involving complex considerations entailed in policies and practices during a public health emergency. In this paper, we first outline the key functions of a public health ethics framework, before describing why we believe it would not be fit for purpose during a crisis. We end by considering whether proposed alternative methods to promote ethical public health decision-making goals have the potential to meet these objectives.

What is public health ethics for the geriatric community?

BackgroundA growing ageing community puts additional demands on the public health system. This will contribute to ethical consequences for the health care sector. A public health ethics framework can contribute towards addressing the ethical challenges faced by the geriatric community.AimThis article intends to contribute to a public health ethics framework for the geriatric community from a South African perspective.SettingTwenty-two participants from six geriatric institutions, two each in the three provinces, participated in the research. The provinces are the Free State, Northern Cape and North West.MethodsFifteen statements were rated using a five-point Likert scale questionnaire. The statements were grouped into three indexes, namely what is ethics, what is public health ethics and what is public health ethics for the geriatric community?ResultsEthical behaviour is observable not only from person to person but also through systems, processes and practices. The need is to understand how to apply ethical principles to the working environment. A public health ethic can be understood from applied, professional and social ethics.ConclusionPublic health ethics is the application of health care principles through a professional ethic resulting in care and relationship-building. The core of what public health is should be the basis to identify a public health ethic where the focus is on the community and improvement of the quality of health and well-being of the community.ContributionNo evidence of a public health ethics framework for the geriatric community could be identified in South Africa.

Restricted family presence for hospitalized surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: How hospital care providers and families navigated ethical tensions and experiences of institutional betrayal

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic restricted family presence in hospitals was a widespread public health intervention to preserve critical resources and mitigate the virus's spread. In this study, we explore the experiences of surgical care providers and family members of hospitalized surgical patients during the period of highly restricted visiting (March 2020 to April 2021) in a large Canadian academic hospital. Thirty-four interviews were completed with hospital providers, family members and members of the hospital's visitor task force. To understand hospital providers' experiences, we highlight the ethical tensions produced by the biomedical and public health ethics frameworks that converged during COVID-19 in hospital providers' bedside practice. Providers grappled with mixed feelings in support of and against restricted visiting, while simultaneously experiencing gaps in resources and care and acting as patient gatekeepers. To understand family members' experiences of communication and care, we use the theory of institutional betrayal to interpret the negative impacts of episodic and systemic communication failures during restricted visiting. Family members of the most vulnerable patients (and patients) experienced short- and long-term effects including anxiety, fear, and refusal of further care. Our analysis draws attention to the complex ways that hospital care providers and families of hospitalized surgical patients sought to establish and reconfigure how trust and patient-centeredness could be achieved under these unprecedented conditions. Practical learnings from this study suggest that if family presence in hospitals must be limited in the future, dedicated personnel for communication and emotional support for patients, families and staff must be prioritized.

The ethics behind mandatory COVID-19 vaccination post-Omicron: The South African context

The legitimacy of mandatory vaccine policies is underscored by a public health ethics framework based on the principles of limited autonomy, social justice and the common good. Ideally, vaccine uptake ought to occur on a voluntary basis as an act of solidarity to ensure that everyone is protected. Given that the altruistic approach has failed and vaccine uptake remains sub-optimal in South Africa, in this paper, I argue for vaccine mandates, in a post-Omicron context. This viewpoint is substantiated by several considerations. Healthcare workers are fatigued after 2 years of treating COVID-19 and many are still treating patients with post-viral syndromes, mental health conditions and cardiovascular complications. Health systems remain under pressure as people with non-COVID diseases, neglected during the pandemic, are also now presenting to medical practices and hospitals. Although South Africa has emerged from a relatively less severe fourth wave of COVID-19, there have been many deaths. Vaccine and natural immunity in a relatively young general population has been advantageous. However, the country has a high prevalence of HIV and those who are untreated may not be able to clear the coronavirus easily. Similarly chronic illnesses place many at risk for severe disease from COVID variants, especially if unvaccinated. The future is shrouded in uncertainty. The next variant could be similar to or less severe than Omicron, yet still impact negatively on health systems, education and the economy. Physical distancing is not ideal in many low socio-economic settings, making vaccines an important component of our prevention toolbox. Our safest option now is to ensure that as many South Africans as possible are vaccinated and receive boosters. Vaccine mandates work to achieve this end. Significance: The legitimacy of COVID-19 vaccine mandates post-Omicron is explored from an ethical perspective, given that the fifth wave remains unpredictable in South Africa – a country with a high prevalence of HIV, vulnerable unvaccinated adults and children, and fragile public health systems. The emergence of new variants is uncertain. However, vaccines are central to an appropriate response to protect public health, health systems and the economy.

Building blocks for a public health ethics framework for the geriatric community.

BackgroundThe elderly population is steadily growing in South Africa. However, there is limited strategic planning or policy initiatives to address this group’s vulnerability resulting in several public health ethical issues that need to be considered and addressed. This article aims to develop a public health ethics framework for the geriatric community with the purpose to review ethical implications when working with the geriatric community.MethodsThe Q-methodology was selected for data collection. Fifteen statements were ranked by means of a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire. Twenty-two participants from six geriatric institutions participated in the ranking of the statements.ResultsThe ranking of the statements confirmed the need for a public health ethics framework to provide guidance when working with the geriatric community and to evaluate decisions about geriatric care. Such a framework should be application-based and practice-oriented which can assist in addressing unfamiliarity with public health ethics in general and can extend the capacity for decision-making. The ranking of these statements contributed to the scope of the planned framework, by considering the vulnerability of healthcare practitioners (as community of practitioners) and the geriatric community as a basis from which to promote justice in public health programmes.ConclusionBased on the ranking of statements, eight building blocks for a public health ethics framework were identified. The building blocks are imbedded in professional ethics and care ethics. The proposed framework can give rise to social justice in public health and the ability to evaluate what the ethical implications are for public health policies, programmes and interventions aimed at the geriatric community.

Ethical issues for e-cigarette control policies in Australia.

Although tobacco smoking in Australia is at a historical low, electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use, especially among the youth is increasing. Policies around e-cigarette control in Australia are currently evolving, even during the pandemic, thus demonstrating its priority status. The current article discusses ethical issues for e-cigarette control policies in Australia using a public health ethics framework. The article is structured using the domains of the WHO-MPOWER framework of tobacco control to enable a comprehensive coverage of all elements of e-cigarette control policies in Australia. It highlights several ethical issues, from different stakeholder perspectives, and indicates moral and ethical tensions in different public health actions that might be considered in framing policies around e-cigarette control. Keywords: Electronic nicotine delivery systems, e-cigarettes, Australia,, smoke-free policy, public health ethics.

COVID-19: opportunities for public health ethics?

Public health ethics is the discipline that ensures that public health professionals and policy makers explain what they do, and why. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical deliberations often did not feature explicitly in public health decisions, thus reducing transparency and consistency in decision-making processes, and resulting in loss of trust by the general public. A public health ethics framework based on principles would add to transparency and consistency in public health decision-making. A framework of seven principles is presented and illustrated by applying them to vital COVID-19 ethical questions. Next the question of COVID-19 vaccination shows how the principles work in conjunction. In conclusion, embedding explicit ethical analysis in public health work is necessary to be trustworthy and regain trust. Preparedness for future challenges implies making the public health community more 'ethically literate'.

A Gay Epidemiologist and the DC Commission of Public Health AIDS Advisory Committee.

Based upon the lead author's deep personal and professional experience, this case narrative illustrates the importance of engagement between public health practitioners and members of affected populations and their advocates. The case underscores the need to build strong coalitions to address serious public health and social issues. It also illustrates how decisions about control groups in research raise ethical issues. In addition, the case illustrates the reality that public health and social services are sometimes inadequate in the face of dire circumstances. Justice in public health has both a distributive aspect (how to allocate limited resources and distribute potential benefits as fairly as possible) and a procedural dimension (ensuring public participation, especially of those most affected). Frameworks for public health ethics, which post-date the events detailed in the autobiographical case narrative, highlight both distributive justice and procedural justice.

Transparency, trust, and community welfare: towards a precision public health ethics framework for the genomics era

Infectious disease control is experiencing a paradigm shift, as pathogen sequencing technologies and digital applications are increasingly implemented for control of diseases such as tuberculosis, Ebola, and COVID-19. A new ethical framework should be a critical part of this emerging paradigm to ensure that the benefit of precision public health interventions based on advances in genomics research is not outweighed by the risks they pose to individuals, families, and vulnerable segments of the population. We suggest that the ethical framework guiding practice in this domain combines standard precepts from public health ethics with emerging ethics principles from precision medicine.

The public health ethics framework and implications for COVID-19

The current COVID-19 pandemic may require a shift in our ethical thinking – away from the widely endorsed framework of patientcentred care towards “public health ethics”. At its core, public health ethics works towards the welfare of a majority in society, and as such, it is not usually applied to individual patients, but rather to a collective (for instance, society as a whole). This may call on us to redirect our efforts away from tirelessly promoting the autonomy of individual patients, towards the welfare of patients as a collective. During COVID-19, this confers a duty not only to existing patients under our care, but also to patients who may present with COVID-19.

It Didn\u2019t Have to be This Way Reflections on the Ethical Justification of the Running Ban in Northern Italy in Response to the 2020 COVID-19 Outbreak

In this paper I discuss the ethical justifiability of the limitation of freedom of movement, in particular of the ban on running outdoors, enforced in Italy as a response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the spring of 2020. I argue that through the lens of public health ethics literature, the ban on running falls short of the criterion of proportionality that public health ethics scholars and international guidelines for the ethical management of infectious disease outbreak recommend for any measure that restricts essential individual freedoms, such as the freedom of movement. The public health ethics framework, however, falls short of explaining the widespread public support that the running ban has had in Italy. I discuss possible factors which could explain the public support for the ban in Italy. Finally, I raise the question of what societal implications the abandonment of the public health ethics framework based on proportionality might have. I conclude that if it is the case, as the history of pandemics teaches us, we will experience further waves of COVID-19 outbreaks, it becomes very important to raise these questions now, with an eye towards informing public health policies for the management of future COVID-19 outbreaks. This discussion should not become politicized along the lines of liberal pro-lockdown/conservative anti-lockdown. Instead, we should reflect on the trade-offs of lockdown policies according to a pluralist framework, in which COVID-19 related deaths are not the only possible value to pursue.

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

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.

Commercial determinants of health: an ethical exploration.

This paper seeks to contribute toward a better understanding of commercial determinants of health by proposing a set of ethical principles that can be used by researchers and other health actors in understanding and addressing Commercial Determinants of Health (CDoH). The paper is mainly based on a systematic review and qualitative analysis of the existing literature on CDoH and public health ethics frameworks. We conducted searches using selected search engines (Google Scholar and Pubmed). For ethical challenges relating to CDOH, our searches in Google Scholar yielded 17 papers that discussed ethical challenges that affect CDoH. For ethical frameworks relevant for CDOH, our searches in Google Scholar and Pubmed yielded 15 papers that clearly described bioethical models including relevant ethical principles. Additionally, we consulted eight experts working on CDoH. Through these two methods, we were able to identify ethical challenges as well as norms and values related to CDoH that we offer as candidates to comprise a foundational ethics framework for CDoH. Discussing risk factors associated with CDH frequently brings public health into conflict with the interests of industry actors in the food, automobile, beverage, alcohol, ammunition, gaming and tobacco industries including conflict between profit-making and public health. We propose the following candidate ethical principles that can be used in addressing CDoH: moral responsibility, nonmaleficence, social justice and equity, consumer sovereignty, evidence-informed actions, responsiveness, accountability, appropriateness, transparency, beneficence and holism. We hope that this set of guiding principles will generate wider global debate on CDoH and help inform ethical analyses of corporate actions that contribute to ill health and policies aimed at addressing CDoH. These candidate principles can guide researchers and health actors including corporations in addressing CDoH.

Ethical Considerations for Food and Beverage Warnings

Several countries have implemented warnings on unhealthy foods and beverages, with similar policies under consideration in the U.S. and around the world. Research demonstrating food warnings’ effectiveness is emerging, but limited scholarship has evaluated the ethics of food warning policies. Using a public health ethics framework for evaluating obesity prevention policies, we assessed the ethical strengths and weaknesses of food warnings along multiple dimensions: 1) Health behaviors and physical health, 2) Psychosocial well-being, 3) Social and cultural values, 4) Informed choice, 5) Equality, 6) Attributions of responsibility, 7) Liberty, and 8) Privacy. Our analysis identifies both ethical strengths and weaknesses of food warnings, including that: 1) warnings are likely to generate important benefits including increased consumer understanding and informed choice, healthier purchases, and potential reductions in obesity prevalence; 2) warnings evoke negative emotional reactions, but these reactions are an important mechanism through which food warnings encourage healthier behaviors and promote informed choice; 3) warnings appear unlikely to have ethically unacceptable effects on social and cultural values, attributions of responsibility, liberty, or privacy. Current research suggests we continue to pursue food warnings as a policy option for improving public health while simultaneously conducting additional research on the ethics of these policies. Future research is especially needed to clarify warnings’ effects on stigma and to characterize the balance and distribution of costs of and benefits from implementing warning policies.

Vector control in Zika-affected communities: Local views on community engagement and public health ethics during outbreaks.

Aerial spraying of products to kill larvae or adult mosquitoes is a public health measure used to control vector-borne diseases. In some outbreaks, the intervention has evoked controversy and community resistance. This study evaluated how local opinion leaders in US localities affected by Zika think about community engagement in public health policies for outbreak response. In December 2017 through March 2018, 4 focus groups were convened in Houston, TX, New Orleans, LA, Miami, FL, and Brooklyn, NY. They discussed a hypothetical scenario that featured vector control by aerial spraying. Participants (N=20) more readily accepted this vector control method under 4 conditions: They were informed of alternatives, benefits, and risks for human health and the environment. Public health claims were backed by objective evidence and an authority figure genuinely working in the community's interests. They received timely notice about how to mitigate toxin exposure. And, aerial spraying helped to protect vulnerable individuals. The community engagement requirements of the local opinion leaders resonate with core principles of recent public health ethics frameworks: namely, personal autonomy, transparency, reasonableness, and solidarity. Participants foresaw problems with community consent in an era of growing social media use and mistrust in governmental and scientific authority. They also debated whether health authorities should use moral-based arguments, in addition to science-based ones, to communicate aerial spraying's risks and benefits.

Perceived Benefits and Harms of Involuntary Civil Commitment for Opioid Use Disorder.

Involuntary civil commitment (ICC) to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) prevents imminent overdose, but also restricts autonomy and raises other ethical concerns. Using the Kass Public Health Ethics Framework, we identified ICC benefits and harms. Benefits include: protection of vulnerable, underserved patients; reduced legal consequences; resources for families; and "on-demand" treatment access. Harms include: stigmatizing and punitive experiences; heightened family conflict and social isolation; eroded patient self-determination; limited or no provision of OUD medications; and long-term overdose risk. To use ICC ethically, it should be recognized as comprising vulnerable patients worthy of added protections; be a last resort option; utilize consensual, humanizing processes; provide medications and other evidence-based-treatment; integrate with existing healthcare systems; and demonstrate effective outcomes before diffusion. ICC to OUD treatment carries significant potential harms that, if unaddressed, may outweigh its benefits. Findings can inform innovations for ensuring that ICC is used in an ethically responsible way.

Surveillance and control of asymptomatic carriers of drug-resistant bacteria.

Drug-resistant bacterial infections constitute a major threat to global public health. Several key bacteria that are becoming increasingly resistant are among those that are ubiquitously carried by human beings and usually cause no symptoms (i.e. individuals are asymptomatic carriers) until and/or unless a precipitating event leads to symptomatic infection (and thus disease). Carriers of drug-resistant bacteria can also transmit resistant pathogens to others, thus putting the latter at risk of resistant infections. Accumulating evidence suggests that such transmission occurs not only in hospital settings but also in the general community, although considerably more data are needed to assess the extent of this problem. Asymptomatic carriage of drug-resistant bacteria raises important ethical questions regarding the appropriate public health response, including the degree to which it would be justified to impose burdens on asymptomatic carriers (and others) in order to prevent transmission. In this paper, we (i) summarize current evidence regarding the carriage of key drug-resistant bacteria, noting important knowledge gaps; and (ii) explore the particular implications of existing public health ethics frameworks for policy-making regarding asymptomatic carriers. Inter alia, we argue that the relative burdens imposed by public health measures on healthy carriers (as opposed to sick individuals) warrant careful consideration and should be proportionate to the expected public health benefits in terms of risks averted. We conclude that more surveillance and research regarding community transmission will be needed in order to clarify relevant risks and design proportionate policies, although extensive community surveillance itself would also require careful ethical consideration.

Adjusting the focus: A public health ethics approach to data research.

This paper contends that a research ethics approach to the regulation of health data research is unhelpful in the era of population-level research and big data because it results in a primary focus on consent (meta-, broad, dynamic and/or specific consent). Two recent guidelines - the 2016 WMA Declaration of Taipei on ethical considerations regarding health databases and biobanks and the revised CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans - both focus on the growing reliance on health data for research. But as research ethics documents, they remain (to varying degrees) focused on consent and individual control of data use. Many current and future uses of health data make individual consent impractical, if not impossible. Many of the risks of secondary data use apply to communities and stakeholders rather than individual data subjects. Shifting from a research ethics perspective to a public health lens brings a different set of issues into view: how are the benefits and burdens of data use distributed, how can data research empower communities, who has legitimate decision-making capacity? I propose that a public health ethics framework - based on public benefit, proportionality, equity, trust and accountability - provides more appropriate tools for assessing the ethical uses of health data. The main advantage of a public health approach for data research is that it is more likely to foster debate about power, justice and equity and to highlight the complexity of deciding when data use is in the public interest.