Thinking ethical and regulatory frameworks in medicine from the perspective of solidarity on both sides of the Atlantic

Providing Health Care and Social Support during Economic Crises: Lessons Learned from "Solidarity Outpatient Clinics" in Greece during the Great Recession

"Solidarity outpatient clinics" (SOCs) emerged in Greece as a novel community-based health care resource during the global economic crisis that started in 2008. They have provided crucial social support to diverse vulnerable populations. Solidarity is a critical organizational principle underlying SOCs' operation. It is juxtaposed to charity to emphasize, among other things, building symmetrical relationships between providers and patients. Employing a case study approach and a multilevel, multimethod research design, we analyzed qualitative data collected through semistructured interviews (N = 20) with patients, staff, and other local stakeholders and content of monthly informational bulletins (N = 26) and weekly radio shows (N = 48) produced by a prominent SOC in Greece's capital. Findings provide insight into structural and functional dimensions of social support exchanges at SOCs and extend our understanding of different types of social support and the organizational contexts through which they are secured, particularly during financial crises.

Solidarity and reciprocity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative interview study from Germany

BACKGROUND

While solidarity practices were important in mitigating the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, their limits became evident as the pandemic progressed. Taking a longitudinal approach, this study analyses German residents' changing perceptions of solidarity practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and examines potential reasons for these changes.

METHODS

Adults living in Germany were interviewed in April 2020 (n = 46), October 2020 (n = 43) and October 2021 (n = 40) as part of the SolPan Research Commons, a large-scale, international, qualitative, longitudinal study uniquely situated in a major global public health crisis. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

While solidarity practices were prominently discussed and positively evaluated in April 2020, this initial enthusiasm waned in October 2020 and October 2021. Yet, participants still perceived solidarity as important for managing the pandemic and called for institutionalized forms of solidarity in October 2020 and October 2021. Reasons for these changing perceptions of solidarity included (i) increasing personal and societal costs to act in solidarity, (ii) COVID-19 policies hindering solidarity practices, and (iii) a perceived lack of reciprocity as participants felt that solidarity practices from the state were not matching their individual efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining solidarity contributes to maximizing public health during a pandemic. Institutionalized forms of solidarity to support those most in need contribute to perceived reciprocity among individuals, which might increase their motivation to act in solidarity. Thus, rather than calling for individual solidarity during times of crisis, authorities should consider implementing sustaining solidarity-based social support systems that go beyond immediate crisis management.

Towards trust-based governance of health data research

Developments in medical big data analytics may bring societal benefits but are also challenging privacy and other ethical values. At the same time, an overly restrictive data protection regime can form a serious threat to valuable observational studies. Discussions about whether data privacy or data solidarity should be the foundational value of research policies, have remained unresolved. We add to this debate with an empirically informed ethical analysis. First, experiences with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) within a European research consortium demonstrate a gap between the aims of the regulation and its effects in practice. Namely, strictly formalised data protection requirements may cause routinisation among researchers instead of substantive ethical reflection, and may crowd out trust between actors in the health data research ecosystem; while harmonisation across Europe and data sharing between countries is hampered by different interpretations of the law, which partly stem from different views about ethical values. Then, building on these observations, we use theory to argue that the concept of trust provides an escape from the privacy-solidarity debate. Lastly, the paper details three aspects of trust that can help to create a responsible research environment and to mitigate the encountered challenges: trust as multi-agent concept; trust as a rational and democratic value; and trust as method for priority setting. Mutual cooperation in research-among researchers and with data subjects-is grounded in trust, which should be more explicitly recognised in the governance of health data research.

Solidaristic behavior and its limits: A qualitative study about German and Swiss residents' behaviors towards public health measures during COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020

Politicians, policymakers, and mass media alike have emphasized the importance of solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic, calling for the need of social cohesion in society to protect risk groups and national healthcare systems. In this study, which is part of an international Consortium, we analyzed 77 qualitative interviews with members of the general public in Germany and German-speaking areas of Switzerland on solidaristic behavior and its limits during the first COVID-19 related lockdown in April 2020. We found interdependencies between the interpersonal, group, and state tiers of solidarity that offer insights into what promotes solidaristic practice and what does not. We argue that because solidarity does not have a necessary and sufficient normative value in itself, those wanting to promote solidarity need to consider these interdependencies to effectively implement policy measures. Our study shows that inter-societal solidarity was based on individual voluntary agency and promoted through recognizing a shared goal, shared values, or other communalities including group effort. It also shows that individuals held state authorities accountable for the same values and expect inter-societal reciprocity from the contractual level. Tensions between those complying or willing to follow recommendations voluntarily and those perceived as not promoting the shared goal, posed challenges for solidarity. Another challenge for solidaristic behavior was when acting in solidarity with others was in direct conflict with the needs of close ones. Our study provides a clearer picture of promoting and limiting factors concerning solidarity which is relevant when communicating health policy measures to individuals and groups.

Epistemic solidarity in medicine and healthcare

In this article, I apply the concept of solidarity to collective knowledge practices in healthcare. Generally, solidarity acknowledges that people are dependent on each other in many respects, and it captures those support practices that people engage in out of concern for others in whom they recognise a relevant similarity. Drawing on the rich literature on solidarity in bioethics and beyond, this article specifically discusses the role that epistemic solidarity can play in healthcare. It thus focuses, in particular, on solidarity’s relationship with justice and injustice. In this regard, it is argued (1) that justice and solidarity are two equally important and complementary values that should both be considered in healthcare practices and institutions and (2) that solidarity often arises in unjust situations and can be a means to bring about justice. I transfer these ‘general’ insights about solidarity to knowledge practices in healthcare and link them to the discussion about epistemic injustices in healthcare and how to overcome them. I argue that epistemic solidarity can play an important role in overcoming epistemic injustices as well as—and independently from its contribution to justice—in knowledge production in medicine more generally. To demonstrate how epistemic solidarity can add to our understanding of collective knowledge practices, I discuss two examples: patients sharing their medical data for research purposes and healthcare professionals’ engagement with patients to better understand their afflictions.

Value-creation in the health data domain: a typology of what health data help us do

It has become a trope to speak of the increasing value of health data in our societies. Such rhetoric is highly performative: it creates expectations, channels and justifies investments in data technologies and infrastructures, and portrays deliberations on political and legal issues as obstacles to the flow of data. Yet, important epistemic and political questions remain unexamined, such as how the value of data is created, what data journeys are envisioned by policies and regulation, and for whom data types are (intended to be) valuable. Drawing on two empirical cases, (a) interviews with physicians on the topic of digital selfcare, and (b) expectations of stakeholders on the use of Real-World Data in clinical trials, as well as existing literature, we propose a typology of what health data help us to do. This typology is intended to foster reflection about the different roles and values that data use unfolds. We conclude by discussing how regulation can better accommodate practices of valuation in the health data domain, with a particular focus on identifying regulatory challenges and opportunities for EU-level policy makers, and how Covid-19 has shed light on new aspects of each case.

Out of Africa: A Solidarity-Based Approach to Vaccine Allocation

This article sets forth a solidaristic approach to global distribution of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our approach draws inspiration from African ethics and from the characterization of the Covid-19 crisis as a syndemic, a convergence of biosocial forces that interact with one another to produce and exacerbate clinical disease and prognosis. The first section elaborates the twin ideas of syndemic and solidarity. The second section argues that these ideas lend support to global health alliances to distribute vaccines beyond national borders. The third section introduces ethical criteria to guide global distribution, emphasizing priority to low- and middle-income countries, which have the least ability to obtain vaccines on their own. It also justifies giving priority to people at high risk of infection and high risk of severe disease and death.

Out of Africa: A Solidarity-Based Approach to Vaccine Allocation

This article sets forth a solidaristic approach to global distribution of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our approach draws inspiration from African ethics and from the characterization of the Covid-19 crisis as a syndemic, a convergence of biosocial forces that interact with one another to produce and exacerbate clinical disease and prognosis. The first section elaborates the twin ideas of syndemic and solidarity. The second section argues that these ideas lend support to global health alliances to distribute vaccines beyond national borders. The third section introduces ethical criteria to guide global distribution, emphasizing priority to low- and middle-income countries, which have the least ability to obtain vaccines on their own. It also justifies giving priority to people at high risk of infection and high risk of severe disease and death.

A marathon, not a sprint - neuroimaging, Open Science and ethics

Open Science is calling for a radical re-thinking of existing scientific practices. Within the neuroimaging community, Open Science practices are taking the form of open data repositories and open lab notebooks. The broad sharing of data that accompanies Open Science, however, raises some difficult ethical and legal issues. With neuroethics as a focusing lens, we explore eight central concerns posed by open data with regard to human brain imaging studies: respect for individuals and communities, concern for marginalized communities, consent, privacy protections, participatory research designs, contextual integrity, fusions of clinical and research goals, and incidental findings. Each consideration assists in bringing nuance to the potential benefits for open data sharing against associated challenges. We combine current understandings with forward-looking solutions to key issues. We conclude by underscoring the need for new policy tools to enhance the potential for responsible open data.

Privacy versus Public Health? A Reassessment of Centralised and Decentralised Digital Contact Tracing

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, high hopes were placed on digital contact tracing. Digital contact tracing apps can now be downloaded in many countries, but as further waves of COVID-19 tear through much of the northern hemisphere, these apps are playing a less important role in interrupting chains of infection than anticipated. We argue that one of the reasons for this is that most countries have opted for decentralised apps, which cannot provide a means of rapidly informing users of likely infections while avoiding too many false positive reports. Centralised apps, in contrast, have the potential to do this. But policy making was influenced by public debates about the right app configuration, which have tended to focus heavily on privacy, and are driven by the assumption that decentralised apps are "privacy preserving by design". We show that both types of apps are in fact vulnerable to privacy breaches, and, drawing on principles from safety engineering and risk analysis, compare the risks of centralised and decentralised systems along two dimensions, namely the probability of possible breaches and their severity. We conclude that a centralised app may in fact minimise overall ethical risk, and contend that we must reassess our approach to digital contact tracing, and should, more generally, be cautious about a myopic focus on privacy when conducting ethical assessments of data technologies.

Public and patient involvement in health data governance (DATAGov): protocol of a people-centred, mixed-methods study on data use and sharing for rare diseases care and research

INTRODUCTION

International policy imperatives for the public and patient involvement in the governance of health data coexist with conflicting cross-border policies on data sharing. This can challenge the planning and implementation of participatory data governance in healthcare services locally. Engaging with local stakeholders and understanding how their needs, values and preferences for governing health data can be articulated with policies made at the supranational level is crucial. This paper describes a protocol for a project that aims to coproduce a people-centred model for involving patients and the public in decision-making processes about the use and sharing of health data for rare diseases care and research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multidisciplinary project draws on an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study. A hospital-based survey with patients, informal carers, health professionals and technical staff recruited at two reference centres for rare diseases in Portugal will be conducted first. The qualitative study will follow consisting of semi-structured interviews and scenario-based workshops with a subsample of the participant groups recruited at baseline. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Inductive and deductive approaches will be combined to analyse the qualitative interviews. Data from scenario-based workshops will be iteratively compared using the constant comparison method to identify cross-cutting themes and categories.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Ethics Committee for Health from the University Hospital Centre São João/Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto approved the study protocol (Ref. 99/19). Research findings will be disseminated at academic conferences and science promotion events, and through public meetings involving patient representatives, practitioners, policy-makers and students, a project website and peer-reviewed journal publications.

Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?

Background

A key ethical question in genomics research relates to whether individual genetic research results should be disclosed to research participants and if so, which results are to be disclosed, by whom and when. Whilst this issue has received only scarce attention in African bioethics discourse, the extension of genomics research to the African continent has brought it into sharp focus.

Methods

In this qualitative study, we examined the views of adolescents, parents and caregivers participating in a paediatric and adolescent HIV-TB genomic study in Botswana on how solidarity and reciprocity obligations could guide decisions about feedback of individual genetic research results. Data were collected using deliberative focus group discussions and in-depth interviews.

Results

Findings from 93 participants (44 adolescents and 49 parents and caregivers) demonstrated the importance of considering solidarity and reciprocity obligations in decisions about the return of individual genetic research results to participants. Participants viewed research participation as a mutual relationship and expressed that return of research results would be one way in which research participation could be reciprocated. They noted that when reciprocity obligations are respected, participants feel valued and not respecting reciprocity expectations could undermine participant trust and participation in future studies.

Conclusions

We conclude that expectations of solidarity and reciprocity could translate into an obligation to feedback selected individual genetic research results in African genomics research.

Sharing whilst caring: solidarity and public trust in a data-driven healthcare system

BACKGROUND

In the UK, the solidaristic character of the NHS makes it one of the most trusted public institutions. In recent years, the introduction of data-driven technologies in healthcare has opened up the space for collaborations with private digital companies seeking access to patient data. However, these collaborations appear to challenge the public's trust in the.

MAIN TEXT

In this paper we explore how the opening of the healthcare sector to private digital companies challenges the existing social contract and the NHS's solidaristic character, and impacts on public trust. We start by critically discussing different examples of partnerships between the NHS and private companies that collect and use data. We then analyse the relationship between trust and solidarity, and investigate how this relationship changes in the context of digital companies entering the healthcare system. Finally, we show ways for the NHS to maintain public trust by putting in place a solidarity grounded partnership model with companies seeking to access patient data. Such a model would need to serve collective interests through, for example, securing preferential access to goods and services, providing health benefits, and monitoring data access.

CONCLUSION

A solidarity grounded partnership model will help establish a social contract or licence that responds to the public's expectations and to principles of a solidaristic healthcare system.

Polyphonic perspectives on health and care: Reflections from two decades of the DIPEx project

In this article we consider how an online resource that publishes the findings and video, audio and written extracts from narrative interview studies has developed as an international collaboration, currently including 14 countries worldwide. In the two decades since the initiative was founded, the robust, national qualitative studies for DIPEx International have branched out from patient information and support to learning and teaching, insights and service improvement and cross-national comparisons. Embracing the challenge to reflect plural discourses of illness, health and care in societies that appear increasingly polarised, the DIPEx collaboration presents polyphonic perspectives that stand as potential counters to reductive dualities. As a result the collaboration has established a collection of unique, international resources that can be leveraged to promote understanding and learning from people's experiences of illness and care.

Motives of contributing personal data for health research: (non-)participation in a Dutch biobank

Background

Large-scale, centralized data repositories are playing a critical and unprecedented role in fostering innovative health research, leading to new opportunities as well as dilemmas for the medical sciences. Uncovering the reasons as to why citizens do or do not contribute to such repositories, for example, to population-based biobanks, is therefore crucial. We investigated and compared the views of existing participants and non-participants on contributing to large-scale, centralized health research data repositories with those of ex-participants regarding the decision to end their participation. This comparison could yield new insights into motives of participation and non-participation, in particular the behavioural change of withdrawal.

Methods

We conducted 36 in-depth interviews with ex-participants, participants, and non-participants of a three-generation, population-based biobank in the Netherlands. The interviews focused on the respondents’ decision-making processes relating to their participation in a large-scale, centralized repository for health research data.

Results

The decision of participants and non-participants to contribute to the biobank was motivated by a desire to help others. Whereas participants perceived only benefits relating to their participation and were unconcerned about potential risks, non-participants and ex-participants raised concerns about the threat of large-scale, centralized public data repositories and public institutes, such as social exclusion or commercialization. Our analysis of ex-participants’ perceptions suggests that intrapersonal characteristics, such as levels of trust in society, participation conceived as a social norm, and basic societal values account for differences between participants and non-participants.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate the fluidity of motives centring on helping others in decisions to participate in large-scale, centralized health research data repositories. Efforts to improve participation should focus on enhancing the trustworthiness of such data repositories and developing layered strategies for communication with participants and with the public. Accordingly, personalized approaches for recruiting participants and transmitting information along with appropriate regulatory frameworks are required, which have important implications for current data management and informed consent procedures.

Disruptive Solidarity or Solidarity Disrupted? A Dialogical Narrative Analysis of Economically Vulnerable Older Adults' Efforts to Age in Place with Pets

Over one-third of older adults in many countries have a companion animal, and pets may harbor health-promoting potential. Few studies have considered pet-ownership in relation to economic vulnerability, and pet-ownership has not been often considered within policy efforts to promote ageing-in-place. We conducted a mixed methods case study to understand perspectives of both community agencies that support ageing-in-place and older adults themselves. A shortage of affordable, appropriate pet-friendly housing emerged as a challenge, even when framed as a legitimate choice and preference for many older adults. In this manuscript, we share the trajectories of three economically vulnerable older adults whose affordable housing needs became entangled with commitments to pets. Guided by dialogical narrative methodology, we offer each narrative as a short vignette to (i) illustrate the extent to which older adults will practice 'more-than-human solidarity' for a pet, even when their own well-being is compromised as a result; and (ii) highlight incongruence between the underlying moral values that shape solidaristic practices of individuals versus solidaristic arrangements that shape affordable housing opportunities. We suggest that housing rules and legislation that disrupt, rather than confirm, more-than-human solidarity may render older adults susceptible to, rather than protected from, deteriorating physical, mental and social well-being. We propose that collective solidaristic practices must reflect and subsume the moral complexity of solidarity practiced by individuals, to enable fair and equitable ageing-in-place.

Is there a duty to participate in digital epidemiology?

This paper poses the question of whether people have a duty to participate in digital epidemiology. While an implied duty to participate has been argued for in relation to biomedical research in general, digital epidemiology involves processing of non-medical, granular and proprietary data types that pose different risks to participants. We first describe traditional justifications for epidemiology that imply a duty to participate for the general public, which take account of the immediacy and plausibility of threats, and the identifiability of data. We then consider how these justifications translate to digital epidemiology, understood as an evolution of traditional epidemiology that includes personal and proprietary digital data alongside formal medical datasets. We consider the risks imposed by re-purposing such data for digital epidemiology and propose eight justificatory conditions that should be met in justifying a duty to participate for specific digital epidemiological studies. The conditions are then applied to three hypothetical cases involving usage of social media data for epidemiological purposes. We conclude with a list of questions to be considered in public negotiations of digital epidemiology, including the application of a duty to participate to third-party data controllers, and the important distinction between moral and legal obligations to participate in research.