ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to discuss principles relevant to ethical deliberation in public health. Conceptual analysis and literature review. Four principles are identified: The Harm Principle, The Principle of Least Restrictive Means, The Reciprocity Principle, and The Transparency Principle. Two examples of how the principles are applied in practice are provided. The paper illustrates how clinical ethics is not an appropriate model for public health ethics and argues that the type of reasoning involved in public health ethics may be at potential variance from that of empirical science. Further research and debate on the appropriate ethics for public health are required.
Principles for the Justification of
Public Health Intervention
R.E.G. Upshur, MA, MD, MSc, FRCPC
ABSTRACT
Objectives: The objective of this paper is to discuss principles relevant to ethical
deliberation in public health.
Methods: Conceptual analysis and literature review.
Results: Four principles are identified: The Harm Principle, The Principle of Least
Restrictive Means, The Reciprocity Principle, and The Transparency Principle. Two
examples of how the principles are applied in practice are provided.
Interpretation: The paper illustrates how clinical ethics is not an appropriate model for
public health ethics and argues that the type of reasoning involved in public health ethics
may be at potential variance from that of empirical science. Further research and debate
on the appropriate ethics for public health are required.
The framework of principalism has
proven to be robust and useful as a
means of assisting practicing clini-
cians to organize their thinking about ethical
issues in clinical medicine. Surveys done by
Coughlin and others have pointed out the
relative lack of systematic instruction in
ethics in both public health and epidemiolo-
gy.1,2 Thus, there is a need for ethics instruc-
tion in both epidemiology and in schools of
public health. Conceptual research on frame-
works for ethical reasoning, recognizing the
essential differences between public health
practice and clinical medicine, is necessary.
The focus of public health is directed to pop-
ulations, communities and the broader social
and environmental influences of health. As
well, there is a greater focus on prevention
than on treatment or cure. It is not clear that
simply importing conceptual models from
clinical ethics will suffice for public health as
the philosophy that underlies public health
differs from that of clinical medicine.3
Public health practice differs substantially
from clinical practice. The context, mandate
and range of activities carried out by public
health practitioners encompass a wide set of
considerations. Most public health depart-
ments are part of state, provincial or federal
governments. The overarching concern for
the individual patient found in clinical
ethics is not neatly analogous to a concern
for the health of a population. As well, there
is no clear analogy to the fiduciary role
played by physicians. Simply put, popula-
tions are constituted by diverse communities
of heterogeneous beliefs and practices. These
may at times come into conflict. Individual
versus community rights and conflicts with-
in and between communities are the more
likely locus of ethical reflection in public
health practice. Hence, public health ethics
must recognize and be able to reason
through issues relating to social, political and
cultural contexts; the existence of competing
values and perspectives and perhaps, incom-
mensurable world views. Given these con-
siderations, it is clear that the straight-
forward application of the principles of auto-
nomy, beneficence, non-malfeasance and jus-
tice in public health practice is problematic.
The principalist framework has come
under heavy criticism in clinical ethics.4
Modern bioethics, which concerns itself
with ethical issues both within and beyond
clinical medicine, consists of a wide range of
theories including virtue ethics, feminist
ethics, and utilitarianism (to name a few), all
The translation of the Abstract appears at the end of the article.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Public Health Sciences and The Joint Centre for
Bioethics, University of Toronto, Primary Care Research Unit, Sunnybrook and Women’s College
Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON
Correspondence: Dr. R.E.G. Upshur, Primary Care Research Unit Room E349B, Department of Family
and Community Medicine, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Science Centre, 2075 Bayview
Avenue, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Tel: 416-480-4753, Fax: 416-480-4536, E-mail:
rupshur@idirect.com
Acknowledgements: Dr. Upshur is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New
Investigator Award and a Research Scholarship from the Department of Family and Community
Medicine, University of Toronto. The author thanks Shari Gruman for her assistance in preparing the
manuscript.
MARCH APRIL 2002 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 101
of which may have some relevance to public
health ethics. The strength of a principle-
based approach is its heuristic nature and
applicability to practice. Gostin has noted
that one problem in defining the sphere of
ethics in public health is the broad ambit of
public health activities. He makes the dis-
tinction between the ethics of public health
(concerned with the ethical dimensions of
professionalism and moral trust that society
invests in professionals to act for the com-
mon good), ethics in public health ( which
incorporate the ethical dimensions of public
health enterprise; the moral standing of pop-
ulation’s health; trade-offs between collective
goods and individual interests and social jus-
tice considerations) and ethics for public
health (the value of healthy communities;
interests of populations, particularly the
powerless and oppressed; and pragmatic
methods).5A set of principles for public
health practitioners to use in the practice of
public health may thus be useful for system-
atic reflection on ethical issues. In what fol-
lows, a set of principles for the analysis of
ethical issues in public health practice is
articulated and analyzed. It is not intended
that these principles be regarded as defini-
tive, but rather heuristic. The principles have
been distilled from a reading of the nascent
literature in public health ethics. They seek
to bring clarity to some of the ethical aspects
of public health decision making in practice.
The focus of these principles relates to the
question of when public health action is jus-
tified. Hence, the locus of application of
these principles is restricted to a specific, but
significant domain. The principles articulat-
ed will not, for example, cover screening and
prevention programs, health promotion pro-
grams or public health research.
Principles
Harm Principle
The harm principle as set out by John Stuart
Mill is perhaps the foundational principle for
public health ethics in a democratic society.
It sets out the initial justification for a gov-
ernment, or government agency, to take
action to restrict the liberty of an individual
or group. The harm principle is succinctly
stated by Mill: The only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any mem-
ber of a civilized community, against his will, is
to prevent harm to others. His own good, either
physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.6
It is important to note that the harm prin-
ciple does not specify what action to take,
but merely states that action is justifiable in
this context.
Least Restrictive or Coercive Means
This principle recognizes that a variety of
means exist to achieve public health ends,
but that the full force of state authority
and power should be reserved for excep-
tional circumstances and that more coer-
cive methods should be employed only
when less coercive methods have failed.
Education, facilitation, and discussion
should precede interdiction, regulation or
incarceration. It should be pointed out that
the principle does legitimate coercive
means where justified and where less
restrictive means have failed to achieve
appropriate ends. This principle has been
enshrined in the Siracusa principles, a set
of internationally agreed upon legal princi-
ples that establish the justified conditions
for the restriction of civil liberty.7 The
Siracusa principles hold that restrictions of
liberty must be legal, legitimate and neces-
sary and use the least restrictive means that
are reasonably available. Furthermore,
there should be no discrimination in their
application.
Reciprocity Principle
Once public health action is warranted,
though, there is an obligation on a social
entity such as a public health department to
assist the individual (or community) in the
discharge of their ethical duties. Complying
with public health requests may impose bur-
dens on individuals. These may involve sac-
rifice of income or time and in general, these
should be compensated. The reciprocity
principle holds that society must be prepared
to facilitate individuals and communities in
their efforts to discharge their duties. It is
discussed more thoroughly by Harris and
Holm.8
Transparency Principle
This principle refers to the manner and con-
text in which decisions are made. All legiti-
mate stakeholders should be involved in the
decision-making process, have equal input
into deliberations, and the manner in which
decision-making is made should be as clear
and accountable as possible. As much as pos-
sible, the decision-making process should be
free of political interference and coercion or
the domination by specific interests. The
process should strive toward what Habermas
has termed an “ideal speech situation”.9
Example 1
Case 1. Smear Positive TB: A 35-year-
old homeless male is found to be smear
positive for MTB. The man is frequently
non-compliant with medication and
uses shelters on nights when it is cold.
In this case there is a potential for harm to
others as someone smear positive for tuber-
culosis is capable of transmitting the disease.
Sleeping in a crowded shelter is an opportu-
nity for such transmission to occur.
Therefore the harm principle is met and
action of some form is justifiable. In terms of
limiting the harms, the least restrictive
means principle would hold that public
health officials start with attempts to educate
and move progressively up through Directly
Observed Therapy (DOTS), supportive
housing, voluntary admission, to involuntary
detention.10-12 The reciprocity principle
holds that public health officials have an
obligation to not just provide the man with
options, but facilitate the discharge of his
obligations. Interventions such as DOTS
and supportive housing are founded, in part,
on the recognition of the need for such
social reciprocity. Finally, guiding the entire
process should be a clear and transparent
communication including the provision of
legal counsel if necessary.
Example 2
Case 2. Concerns over a toxic exposure:
The health department is called to investi-
gate community concerns regarding
chemicals leeching into the water table.
An epidemiological investigation fails to
show any linkage of the exposure to
health outcomes, but the sample sizes are
small and the confidence intervals around
the estimates wide. Nonetheless the com-
munity persists in its belief of adverse
health effects.
In this case it is questionable whether the
harm principle is met. In essence, there is
uncertainty and no persuasive evidence of
health impact from an epidemiologic point
of view. However, psychosocial impacts
from environmental exposures may be con-
siderable,13 and using a holistic definition of
health, harm may indeed have occurred.
Whether the harm principle is satisfied in
this case is, therefore, arguable. Given that
PRINCIPLES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVENTION
102 REVUE CANADIENNE DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE VOLUME 93,NO. 2
Mill’s principle does not explicitly state how
harms are to be understood, it does not pro-
vide clear guidance unless one wishes to
invoke the use of principle on behalf of the
community and order an immediate clean-
up.
In this example, legally sanctioned inter-
vention on the part of the health department
may not be warranted. It is likely that both
parties to the dispute will interpret the
harms differently. Despite this, there is still a
need for reciprocity and transparency. If
there is no clear warrant for action by public
health, there is still an obligation on the part
of the department to play a role in facilitat-
ing communication and mutual understand-
ing so long as the issues remain focused on
health.
Ethical reasoning in Public Health
How are the above principles brought into
practice? There has been an increased recog-
nition of the need to assess reasoning as it
applies to health care practice.14 Ethics is
essentially a reflective task that requires par-
ticipants to be explicit about what they
believe, why, what they value and on what
grounds. This process should be conducted
in the context of rational discourse. The
introduction of value issues into “objective-
scientific” reflection has often been regarded
as a potential bias. Yet this rests largely on
lack of clarity on the role and meaning of
values in science.15
Walton argues that public health delibera-
tions rest on a different logic than scientific
reasoning. The standard of evidence or bur-
den of proof required for public health
action may be at variance with that of tradi-
tional conceptions of scientific reasoning.
Walton refers to this as tutiorism.16 Scientific
reasoning relies on confirmation of results
and is oriented to avoiding Type I errors.
Public health, on the other hand, often takes
action to prevent harm even when the evi-
dence may be uncertain. The words of A.B.
Hill are appropriate here. Hill is aware that
evidence is usually incomplete and hence
there is a need for differential standards for
action. After noting that on very slight evi-
dence we may wish to reduce hazards to
pregnant women and on fair evidence to
make interventions in workplaces, it may
require very strong evidence to intervene in
the lifestyles of people. He writes: “In asking
for very strong evidence I would repeat,
emphatically, that this does not imply cross-
ing every “t” and swords with every critic
before we act.”17
The idea of a differential evidence stan-
dard for public health action is a fertile one
that requires further development. In public
health practice, the evidence may not be
clear or the evidence may be characterized by
underdetermination.18,19 This commonly
occurs in public health. We shall never have
randomized control trial evidence of many
environmental exposures such as chemicals,
and many proposed interventions are subject
to long lag times before effects are noted.
Underdetermination occurs when the data
can be interpreted in many ways that are
plausible but conflicting. This can occur for
statistical reasons such as model selection, or
because of unexpressed or unacknowledged
value or epistemic commitments. The prob-
lem of underdetermination is not limited to
observational studies.20 It may be a general-
ized feature of knowledge acquisition.21
CONCLUSION
Ethics in public health requires systematic
attention. In this paper, I have argued for
the differences between public health and
clinical care, defined and illustrated a set of
principles for public health practitioners to
use in the analysis of using public health
powers. The utility of these principles in
practice also requires evaluation. There is
often a long lag time between the conceptual
analysis of ethical issues and their empirical
evaluation. This paper intends to stimulate
debate, research and scholarship on an
important dimension of public health prac-
tice.
REFERENCES
1. Coughlin SS, Etheredge GD. On the need for
ethics curricula in epidemiology. Epidemiology
1995;6(5):566-67.
2. Coughlin SS, Katz WH, Mattison DR. Ethics
instruction at schools of public health in the
United States. Association of Schools of Public
Health Education Committee. Am J Public Health
1999;89(5):768-70.
3. Weed DL. Towards a philosophy of public health.
J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53(2):99-104.
4. Beauchamp TL. Principalism and its alleged com-
petitors. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1995;5(3):181-98.
5. Gostin LO. Public health, ethics, and human
rights: A tribute to the late Jonathan Mann.
J Law Med Ethics 2001;29(2):121-30.
6. Mill J. On liberty. In: Wishy B (Ed.), Prefaces to
Liberty: Selected Writings. Lanham, MD: University
Press America, 1959.
7. Coker R. Detention and mandatory treatment for
tuberculosis patients in Russia. Lancet
2001;358(9279):349-50.
8. Harris J, Holm S. Is there a moral obligation not to
infect others? BMJ 1995;311(7014):1215-17.
9. Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action.
Vol 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society.
McCarthy, T. (trans). Boston: Beacon Press; 1984.
10. Annas GJ. Control of tuberculosis—the law and
the public’s health. N Engl J Med
1993;328(8):585-88.
11. Bayer R, Dupuis L. Tuberculosis, public health,
and civil liberties. Annu Rev Public Health
1995;16:307-26.
12. Singleton L, Turner M, Haskal R, et al. Long-term
hospitalization for tuberculosis control. Experience
with a medical-psychosocial inpatient unit. JAMA
1997;278(10):838-42.
13. Elliott SJ, Taylor SM, Walter S, et al. Modelling
psychosocial effects of exposure to solid waste facili-
ties. Soc Sci Med 1993;37(6):791-804.
14. Horton R. The grammar of interpretive medicine.
CMAJ 1998;159(3):245-49.
15. Longino H. Science as Social Knowledge. Values and
Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1990.
16. Walton D. The New Dialectic: Conversational
Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1998.
17. Hill A. The environment and disease: Association
or causation? Proc Roy Assoc Med 1965:295-300.
18. Weed DL. Underdetermination and incommensu-
rability in contemporary epidemiology. Kennedy
Inst Ethics J 1997;7(2):107-27.
19. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz N.
Verification, validation and confirmation of
numerical models in the earth sciences. Science
1994;263:641-46.
20. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to
interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ
1997;156(10):1411-16.
21. Barrow J. The Limits of Science and the Science of
Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Received: December 4, 2000
Accepted: November 15, 2001
PRINCIPLES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVENTION
RÉSUMÉ
Objectifs : Étudier les principes d’un débat éthique en santé publique.
Méthode : Analyse notionnelle et enquête bibliographique.
Résultats : Nous avons cerné quatre principes (réduction des méfaits, choix des moyens les moins
restrictifs, réciprocité et transparence) et fourni deux exemples de leur application dans la pratique.
Interprétation : Le modèle de déontologie clinique ne convient pas à la santé publique, car le type
de raisonnement employé pour les questions éthiques en santé publique peut être différent de celui
des sciences empiriques. Il faudrait pousser la recherche et le débat pour définir un modèle éthique
qui convienne à la santé publique.
MARCH APRIL 2002 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 103
... La segunda objeción tiene que ver con el principio del daño a terceros formulado por John Stuart Mill, sobre el cual se fundamenta, según Ross Upshur (2002) y otros autores, toda la ética de la salud pública en una sociedad democrática moderna. En la ecuación moral del confinamiento domiciliario se da por sentado que la salida a la calle es un riesgo cierto para los demás; se presume no solo que es un riesgo sino que conllevará, con toda seguridad, poco menos que la muerte de otras personas. ...
Article
Full-text available
En marzo de 2020, ante la llegada de la COVID-19, España decretó uno de los confinamientos más estrictos de Occidente. Esta medida sanitaria tan extrema plantea un conflicto ético de valores que se traslada, en lo político, a los derechos fundamentales y, en última instancia, a los derechos humanos. En este artículo se repasan los derechos afectados y se analiza el confinamiento impuesto por España e imitado luego por los países latinoamericanos, con el prisma de los principios éticos relativos a la contención de epidemias. El confinamiento fue una intervención inédita, que no estaba probada y cuya eficacia era desconocida; conllevó una vulneración grave de los derechos civiles sin justificación científica y sin verdaderos resultados epidemiológicos. Evitar el mismo error en futuras pandemias depende en parte de un escrupuloso respeto por los principios éticos que ya están recogidos en la legislación vigente.
... Patient autonomy is a critical first principle of healthcare (23). During a pandemic, however, the right to refuse vaccination can conflict with the public health Harm Principle (24). Such refusal may also compromise healthcare providers' physical safety through the threat of exposure to new variants and exacerbating waves of COVID-19 patients encountered in inpatient settings (25,26). ...
Article
Full-text available
IMPORTANCE In the setting of an active pandemic the impact of public vaccine hesitancy on healthcare workers has not yet been explored. There is currently a paucity of literature that examines how patient resistance to disease prevention in general impacts practitioners. OBJECTIVES The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented healthcare challenges with impacts on healthcare workers’ wellbeing. Vaccine hesitancy added complexity to providing care for unvaccinated patients. Our study qualitatively explored experiences of healthcare providers caring for unvaccinated patients with severe COVID-19 infection in the intensive care setting. DESIGN We used interview-based constructivist grounded theory methodology to explore experiences of healthcare providers with critically ill unvaccinated COVID-19 patients. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Healthcare providers who cared for unvaccinated patients with severe COVID-19 respiratory failure following availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines were recruited from seven ICUs located within two large academic centers and one community-based hospital. We interviewed 24 participants, consisting of eight attending physicians, seven registered nurses, six critical care fellows, one respiratory therapist, one physiotherapist, and one social worker between March 2022 and September 2022 (approximately 1.5 yr after the availability of COVID-19 vaccines in Canada). ANALYSIS Interviews were recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and coded to identify emerging themes. The final data was analyzed to generate the thematic framework. Reflexivity was employed to reflect upon and discuss individual pre-conceptions and opinions that may impact collection and interpretation of the data. RESULTS Healthcare providers maintained dedication toward professionalism during provision of care, at the cost of suffering emotional turmoil from the pandemic and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Evolving sources of stress associated with vaccine hesitancy included ongoing high volumes of critically ill patients, resource shortages, and visitation restrictions, which contributed to perceived emotional distress, empathy loss, and professional dissatisfaction. As a result, there were profound personal and professional consequences for healthcare professionals, with perceived impacts on patient care. CONCLUSIONS Our study highlights struggles of healthcare providers in fulfilling professional duties while navigating emotional stressors unique to vaccine hesitancy. System-based interventions should be explored to help providers navigate biases and moral distress, and to foster resilience for the next major healthcare system strain.
... Los criterios para asignar los escasos recursos para salvar vidas determinaron, en muchos de los casos, que los adultos mayores o pacientes con enfermedades crónicas, como diabetes o cáncer, además de las personas de comunidades minoritarias o las personas con discapacidad fueran discriminadas 20 , vulnerando, de esta manera, los principios de reciprocidad, dignidad y justicia 8,9 , de igual forma, los principios éticos de beneficiencia, no maleficencia, economía y justicia, postulados por Beauchamp y Childress en 1979 21 . Para hacer frente a este dilema ético, España estableció equipos de clasificación para implementar criterios de priorización, para minimizar el sesgo y evitar consecuencias negativas no deseadas 22 . ...
Article
Full-text available
RESUMEN Cuando llega la pandemia de Covid-19, Venezuela se encuentra inmersa en una profunda crisis socio-ec onómica, producto de la caída de los precios del petróleo, sumado a un estado de hiperinflación. Con base a este contexto, nos planteamos como objetivo analizar la evidencia científica publicada en las diferentes bases de datos sobre los dilemas éticos que se presentaron en Venezuela, durante la pandemia de Covid-19. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura, haciendo uso de la estrategia PICO, se buscó material científico en bases de datos, metabuscadores y literatura gris. La revisión se realizó en 03 fases. Y se llevó a cabo durante el periodo enero a abril del año 2023. La búsqueda inicial recuperó 906 registros, de los cuales solo 22 títulos cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. El año 2020 reporto la mayor producción de publicaciones representando doce (12) investigaciones; veintiuno (21) artículos redactados en español y uno (1) en idioma inglés. Fueron identificados 21 valores o principios éticos, siendo los principios de justicia, autonomía, beneficencia, dignidad, medios menos restrictivos, daño, transparencia, no maleficencia, igualdad y solidaridad los más citados. Algunos de estos principios eran complementarios, otros en cambio entraban en conflicto, y se aplicaron en una variada gama de escenarios, en los que cabe d estacar, las medidas de cuarentena radical, las fallas en la dotación de insumos, de equipos de protección personal para los trabajadores sanitarios, el acceso a las vacunas, los grupos poblacionales vulnerables, la telemedicina, entre otros. ABSTRACT When the Covid-19 pandemic arrived, Venezuela was immersed in a deep socioeconomic crisis, a product of the fall in oil prices, added to a state of hyperinflation that affected all areas of national life, especially the health sector. In this context, our objective is to analyze the scientific evidence published on the ethical dilemmas that arose in the country, in health care services during the course of this disease. A systematic review of the literature was carried out, using the PICO strategy and scientific material was searched in databases, metasearch engines and gray literature. The review was carried out in 03 phases in the period January to April 2023. The initial search recovered 906 records, of which 22 titles met the inclusio n criteria. The year 2020 reported the highest production of publications with twelve (12) investigations; twenty-one (21) articles written in Spanish, and one (1) in English. Twenty one (21) ethical values ??or principles were identified, with the principles of justice, autonomy, beneficence, dignity, less restrictive means, harm, transparency, non-maleficence, equality and solidarity being the most cited. Some of these principles were complementary, others conflicted, and they were applied in a wide range of scenarios, highlighting radical quarantine measures, failures in the provision of supplies, personal protective equipment for health workers, access to vaccines, vulnerable population groups and telemedicine, among others.
... The key in the management of public health programs should be that the full force, authority, and power of state institutions should be reserved for extreme circumstances as against the deployment of complete force. 18 Though public health practice is meant to prevent harm, the key assumption here is that greater harm should not be construed in the process of preventing harm. In the accomplishment of this, more coercive mechanism should be the last resort in the failure of less coercive methods. ...
Article
Full-text available
The COVID-19 lockdown control tactics used by security agents on the citizens of north-central Nigeria were studied for their effects on health The convenience sampling method was employed to select six states of the study area. Due to the nature of the data collected, quantitative data analysis was limited to percentages, while state-by-state evaluation was used to summarize qualitative data sources. Additionally, hospital records from five privately owned and two government-owned hospitals in each of the study area's states were generated, for a total of 42 hospitals sampled for the research. The obtained medical records demonstrate that the COVID-19 lockdown control actions by security agents have a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of the citizens in the study area. Amputation (0.27%), bacterial vaginosis (3.43%), coughing (11.16%), cataracts in the eyes (7.69%), etc., were reported. There was an association found between victims' health issues and security agents' use of force. Proposed were reforms and least invasive methods of managing public health, including social marketing, education, democratic policing tactics, and facilitation engagement.
... The article by Karpagam commences with a mention of the principle of harm, which, based on JS Mill's account of liberty, succinctly states that action against an individual or community is justified to prevent harm to others. It is important to note that there might be instances where the principles that apply to the care of individual patients are not analogous to those that pertain to public health, with potential conflicts and trade-offs between individual and community rights being a locus of reflection in the latter [4]. Even though there is bound to be a perennial tension between individual and community rights, the interest of the community is the focal point in public health [5]. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this response, we seek to analyse and rebut the observations of Karpagam S using an understanding of the Kerala Health system and the general purpose of the Kerala Public Health Act (KPHA). The KPHA was crafted with a greater focus on a one-health and preventive approach. It does not seek to interfere in an individual’s preferred choice of treatment, except in the case of public health emergencies. KPHA is not a standalone document, but a supporting tool to the existing Kerala Health Policy and various other health policies and programmes instrumental in improving the health and quality of life of the people of the State. The KPHA is intended to be an enforcement tool for legal provisions to ensure welfare maximisation of the society at large, and thus detailed discussions regarding actions to be taken beyond these legal provisions do not fall within the purview of the Act.
Technical Report
This literature review provides an overview of ethical approaches used at the intersection of climate change, the environment and health. Six ethical approaches are discussed: (i) rights- based approaches, concentrating on human rights, animal rights and environmental rights; (ii) justice approaches, discussing issues of distribution, relations, climate health justice, future generations, and interspecies justice; (iii) integrated concepts of health, such as One Health and Planetary Health; (iv) Indigenous and non-Western perspectives, introducing the significance of biocultural heritage, harmonious relationships, and decolonisation movements; (v) professional responsibilities towards the environment among health workers and other professions; and (vi) ethical principles in relation to climate change and the environment. A concise assessment is provided on how each of these ethical approaches may inform policy and practice addressing climate change, environmental degradation and health.
Article
Background The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new challenges to provide care and educate junior doctors (resident physicians). We sought to understand the positive and negative experiences of first-year resident physicians and describe potential ethical issues from their stories. Method We used narrative inquiry (NI) methodology and applied a semistructured interview guide with questions pertaining to ethical principles and both positive and negative aspects of the pandemic. Sampling was purposive. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Three members of the research team coded transcripts in duplicate to elicit themes. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion to attain consensus. A composite story with threads was constructed. Results 11 residents participated across several programmes. Three main themes emerged from the participants’ stories: (1) complexities in navigating intersecting healthcare and medical education systems, (2) balancing public health and the public good versus the individual and (3) fair health systems planning/healthcare delivery. Within these themes, participants’ journeys through the first wave were elicited through the threads of (1) engage us, (2) because we see the need for the duty to treat and (3) we are all in this together. Discussion Cases of the ethical issues that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic may serve as a foundation on which ethics teaching and future pandemic planning can take place. Principles of clinical ethics and their limitations, when applied to public health issues, could help in contrasting clinical ethics with public health ethics. Conclusion Efforts to understand how resident physicians can navigate public health emergencies along with the ethical issues that arise could benefit both residency education and healthcare systems.
Article
In Impossibility , John D. Barrow--one of our most elegant and accomplished science writers--argues convincingly that there are limits to human discovery, that there are things that are ultimately unknowable, undoable, or unreachable. Barrow first examines the limits of the human mind: our brain evolved to meet the demands of our immediate environment, and much that lies outside this small circle may also lie outside our understanding. He investigates practical impossibilities, such as those imposed by complexity, uncomputability, or the finiteness of time, space, and resources. Is the universe finite or infinite? Can information be transmitted faster than the speed of light? The book also examines deeper theoretical restrictions on our ability to know, including Godel's theorem, which proved that there were things that could not be proved. Finally, having explored the limits imposed on us from without, Barrow considers whether there are limits we should impose upon ourselves. Weaving together this intriguing tapestry, Barrow illuminates some of the most profound questions of science, from the possibility of time travel to the very structure of the universe.
Article
Context. —Patients with tuberculosis (TB) who are nonadherent to therapy or have complicated medical or social problems pose a threat to public health. In some cases, hospitalization may be a necessary component of a comprehensive TB control program.