Public health ethics: critiques of the "new normal"

Ethical issues in Nipah virus control and research: addressing a neglected disease

Nipah virus is a priority pathogen that is receiving increasing attention among scientists and in work on epidemic preparedness. Despite this trend, there has been almost no bioethical work examining ethical considerations surrounding the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of Nipah virus or research that has already begun into animal and human vaccines. In this paper, we advance the case for further work on Nipah virus disease in public health ethics due to the distinct issues it raises concerning communication about the modes of transmission, the burdens of public health surveillance, the recent use of stringent public health measures during epidemics, and social or religious norms intersecting with preventive measures. We also advance the case for further work on Nipah virus disease in research ethics, given ethical issues surrounding potential vaccine trials for a high-fatality disease with sporadic spillover events, the different local contexts where trials may occur, and the potential use of unproven therapeutics during outbreaks. Further bioethics work may help to ensure that research and public health interventions for Nipah virus disease are ethically acceptable and more likely to be effective.

Values and preferences in COVID-19 public health guidelines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Internationally accepted standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in values and preferences. Considering values and preferences respects the rights of citizens to participate in health decision-making and ensures that guidelines align with the needs and priorities of the communities they are intended to serve. Early anecdotal reports suggest that COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. To capture and characterize whether and how COVID-19 public health guidelines considered values and preferences.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of COVID-19 public health guidelines. We searched the eCOVID-19 RecMap platform-a comprehensive international catalog of COVID-19 guidelines-up to July 2023 and the Guidelines International Network Library-an international library of guidelines published or endorsed by Guidelines International Network member organizations-up to May 2024. We included guidelines that made recommendations addressing vaccination, masking, isolation, lockdowns, travel restrictions, contact tracing, infection surveillance, and school closures. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to review guidelines for consideration of values and preferences.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 130 eligible guidelines, of which 41 (31.5%) were published by national organizations, 70 (53.8%) by international organizations, and 19 (14.6%) by professional societies and associations. Twenty-eight (21.5%) guidelines considered values and preferences. Among guidelines that considered values and preferences, most did so to assess the acceptability of recommendations (23; 82.1%) and by referencing published research (25; 89.3%). Guidelines only occasionally engaged laypersons as part of the guideline development group (8; 28.6%). None of the guidelines performed systematic reviews of the literature addressing values and preferences.

CONCLUSION

Most COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. When they were considered, it was often suboptimal. Disregard for values and preferences might have partly contributed to divisive and unpopular COVID-19 policies. Given the possibility of future health emergencies, we recommend guideline developers identify efficient and effective methods for considering values and preferences in crisis situations.

The Ethical Obligation for Research During Public Health Emergencies: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic

In times of crises, public health leaders may claim that trials of public health interventions are unethical. One reason for this claim can be that equipoise-i.e. a situation of uncertainty and/or disagreement among experts about the evidence regarding an intervention-has been disturbed by a change of collective expert views. Some might claim that equipoise is disturbed if the majority of experts believe that emergency public health interventions are likely to be more beneficial than harmful. However, such beliefs are not always justified: where high quality research has not been conducted, there is often considerable residual uncertainty about whether interventions offer net benefits. In this essay we argue that high-quality research, namely by means of well-designed randomized trials, is ethically obligatory before, during, and after implementing policies in public health emergencies (PHEs). We contend that this standard applies to both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions, and we elaborate an account of equipoise that captures key features of debates in the recent pandemic. We build our case by analyzing research strategies employed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding drugs, vaccines, and non-pharmaceutical interventions; and by providing responses to possible objections. Finally, we propose a public health policy reform: whenever a policy implemented during a PHE is not grounded in high-quality evidence that expected benefits outweigh harms, there should be a planned approach to generate high-quality evidence, with review of emerging data at preset time points. These preset timepoints guarantee that policymakers pause to review emerging evidence and consider ceasing ineffective or even harmful policies, thereby improving transparency and accountability, as well as permitting the redirection of resources to more effective or beneficial interventions.

Moral failure, moral prudence, and character challenges in residential care during the Covid-19 pandemic

In many high-income countries, an initial response to the severe impact of Covid-19 on residential care was to shield residents from outside contacts. As the pandemic progressed, these measures have been increasingly questioned, given their detrimental impact on residents' health and well-being and their dubious effectiveness. Many authorities have been hesitant in adapting visiting policies, often leaving nursing homes to act on their own safety and liability considerations. Against this backdrop, this article discusses the appropriateness of viewing the continuation of the practice of shielding as a moral failure. This is affirmed and specified in four dimensions: preventability of foreseeable harm, moral agency, moral character, and moral practice (in MacIntyre's sense). Moral character is discussed in the context of prudent versus proportionate choices. As to moral practice, it will be shown that the continued practice of shielding no longer met the requirements of an (inherently moral) practice, as external goods such as security thinking and structural deficiencies prevented the pursuit of internal goods focusing on residents' interests and welfare, which in many places has led to a loss of trust in these facilities. This specification of moral failure also allows a novel perspective on moral distress, which can be understood as the expression of the psychological impact of moral failure on moral agents. Conclusions are formulated about how pandemic events can be understood as character challenges for healthcare professionals within residential care, aimed at preserving the internal goods of residential care even under difficult circumstances, which is understood as a manifestation of moral resilience. Finally, the importance of moral and civic education of healthcare students is emphasized to facilitate students' early identification as trusted members of a profession and a caring society, in order to reduce experiences of moral failure or improve the way to deal with it effectively.

Quantifying the impact of individual and collective compliance with infection control measures for ethical public health policy

Infectious disease control measures often require collective compliance of large numbers of individuals to benefit public health. This raises ethical questions regarding the value of the public health benefit created by individual and collective compliance. Answering these requires estimating the extent to which individual actions prevent infection of others. We develop mathematical techniques enabling quantification of the impacts of individuals or groups complying with three public health measures: border quarantine, isolation of infected individuals, and prevention via vaccination/prophylaxis. The results suggest that (i) these interventions exhibit synergy: They become more effective on a per-individual basis as compliance increases, and (ii) there is often substantial "overdetermination" of transmission. If a susceptible person contacts multiple infectious individuals, an intervention preventing one transmission may not change the ultimate outcome (thus, risk imposed by some individuals may erode the benefits of others' compliance). These results have implications for public health policy during epidemics.