Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: Foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing?

Preferences as fairness judgments: a critical review of normative frameworks of preference elicitation and development of an alternative based on constitutional economics

Preference elicitation is widely used within health economic evaluations to inform coverage decisions. However, coverage decisions involve questions of social justice and it is unclear what role empirical evidence about preferences can play here. This study reviews the prevalent normative frameworks for using population-based preference elicitation and the criticisms they face, and proposes an alternative based on constitutional economics. The frameworks reviewed include a supposedly value-neutral framework of preferences as predictors of choice, preference utilitarian frameworks that aim to maximize preference satisfaction, and substantive consequentialist frameworks that aim to maximize happiness, health, or capabilities. The proposed alternative implements the idea that indices of social value are tools for conflict resolution, rather than tools for maximization. Preference elicitation is used for validating values generated by multi-criteria decision analysis results within representative processes of stakeholder deliberation.

From vision to action: Canadian leadership in ethics and neurotechnology

This chapter explores the complex neuroethical aspects of neurosurgery and neuromodulation in the context of Canadian healthcare and innovation, as seen through the lens of the Pan Canadian Neurotechnology Ethics Consortium (PCNEC). Highlighted are key areas of ethical focus, each with its own unique challenges: technical advances, readiness and risk, vulnerable populations, medico-legal issues, training, and research. Through an exploration of Canadian neurotechnological practice from these various clusters, we provide a critical review of progress, describe opportunities to address areas of debate, and seek to foster ethical innovation. Underpinning this comprehensive review are the fundamental principles of solution-oriented, practical neuroethics, with beneficence and justice at the core. In our view, it is a moral imperative that neurotechnological advancements include a delineation of ethical priorities for future guidelines, oversight, and interactions.

Towards an Explanation of the Social Value of Health Systems: An Interpretive Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health systems are complex social systems, and values constitute a central dimension of their complexity. Values are commonly understood as key drivers of health system change, operating across all health systems components and functions. Moreover, health systems are understood to influence and generate social values, presenting an opportunity to harness health systems to build stronger, more cohesive societies. However, there is little investigation (theoretical, conceptual, or empirical) on social values in health policy and systems research (HPSR), particularly regarding the capacity of health systems to influence and generate social values. This study develops an explanatory theory for the 'social value of health systems.'

METHODS

We present the results of an interpretive synthesis of HPSR literature on social values, drawing on a qualitative systematic review, focusing on claims about the relationship between 'health systems' and 'social values.' We combined relational claims extracted from the literature under a common framework in order to generate new explanatory theory.

RESULTS

We identify four mechanisms by which health systems are considered to contribute social value to society: Health systems can: (1) offer a unifying national ideal and build social cohesion, (2) influence and legitimise popular attitudes about rights and entitlements with regard to healthcare and inform citizen's understanding of state responsibilities, (3) strengthen trust in the state and legitimise state authority, and (4) communicate the extent to which the state values various population groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that, using a systems-thinking and complex adaptive systems perspective, the above mechanisms can be explained as emergent properties of the dynamic network of values-based connections operating within health systems. We also demonstrate that this theory accounts for how HPSR authors write about the relationship between health systems and social values. Finally, we offer lessons for researchers and policy-makers seeking to bring about values-based change in health systems.

Model for Value-based Policy-making in Health Systems

Background:

Values are at the heart of discussions related to policy-making and any kind of reforms in health systems. Despite wide recognition of its importance, the concept of value is still vague and the policy-making processes remain astray with respect to values. This study aims to provide a model of value-based policy-making and to explain the concept value and how it affects policy-making.

Methods:

The main question of the current study is to explain the concept of value-based policy-making and developing a model, based on the explained concept. In this line, critical review method and Carnwell and Daly approach and using particular keywords related to stewardship, and searching databases were used. In the initial search, 739 studies were obtained, of which using targeted sampling method, 11 studies were finally selected. Then, in order to design and explain different aspects of the value concept in the health system and to develop a model, selected studies were criticized, and finally, the conceptual model of value is designed and explained.

Results:

The concept of value and its effects, dimensions and its relation to principles, evidence and criteria were determined at different stages of the policy-making process. It was also revealed that value-based policy-making in a health system is contingent upon the realization of terminal values.

Conclusions:

In the process of selecting the best policy option, it is necessary to identify the relationship between terminal, instrumental, criterion, and evidence to avoid deviating from the reference value framework in any country and to avoid blindly imitating other experiences in other countries.

Mistrust and inconsistency during COVID-19: considerations for resource allocation guidelines that prioritise healthcare workers

As the USA contends with another surge in COVID-19 cases, hospitals may soon need to answer the unresolved question of who lives and dies when ventilator demand exceeds supply. Although most triage policies in the USA have seemingly converged on the use of clinical need and benefit as primary criteria for prioritisation, significant differences exist between institutions in how to assign priority to patients with identical medical prognoses: the so-called 'tie-breaker' situations. In particular, one's status as a frontline healthcare worker (HCW) has been a proposed criterion for prioritisation in the event of a tie. This article outlines two major grounds for reconsidering HCW prioritisation. The first recognises trust as an indispensable element of clinical care and mistrust as a hindrance to any public health strategy against the virus, thus raising concerns about the outward appearance of favouritism. The second considers the ways in which proponents of HCW prioritisation deviate from the very 'ethics frameworks' that often preface triage policies and serve to guide resource allocation-a rhetorical strategy that may undermine the very ethical foundations on which triage policies stand. By appealing to trust and consistency, we re-examine existing arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation and provide a more tenable justification for adjudicating on tie-breaker events during crisis standards of care.

Identifying and Classifying Tools for Health Policy Ethics Review: A Systematic Search and Review

Ethical review and analysis of health policy may help to ensure policies address the needs of society and align with relevant values and principles. Indeed, researchers and bioethicists have recognized the need for ethical frameworks specifically for public health applications. The objective of this research was to compile structured tools for ethical review of (drafted or existing) health policy and to analyze these tools for their scope and philosophical underpinnings. A systematic search and review of academic and grey literature was conducted to compile existing tools designed for health policy ethics review. The search yielded 13 health policy ethical review tools. Qualitative content analysis revealed that all of the tools were influenced by multiple ethical values and that a majority were influenced by more than one ethical theory. The most common values were non-maleficence and beneficence (92.3%). The most common influencing ethical theory was the Principles Approach (92.3%). The structure of the tools demonstrates a heterogeneity of methodology designs to approach policy ethics review. This research offers a unique contribution to the bioethics field that provides a useful resource and understanding of the current ethical review tools for health policy.

Health Equity’s Missing Substance: (Re)Engaging the Normative in Public Health Discourse and Knowledge Making

Since 1984, the idea of health equity has proliferated throughout public health discourse with little mainstream critique for its variability and distance from its original articulation signifying social transformation and a commitment to social justice. In the years since health equity’s emergence and proliferation, it has taken on a seemingly endless range of invocations and deployments, but it most often translates into proactive and apolitical discourse and practice. In Margaret Whitehead’s influential characterization (1991), achieving health equity requires determining what is inequitable by examining and judging the causes of inequalities in the context of what is going on in the rest of society. However, it also remains unclear how or if public health actors examine and judge the causes of health inequality. In this article, we take the concept of health equity itself as an object of study and consider the ways in which its widespread deployment has entailed a considerable emptying of its semantic and political content. We point toward equity’s own discursive productivity as well as the quantifying imperative embedded within evidentiary norms that govern knowledge making, and performance management regimes that govern public health practices. Under current conditions of knowledge making and performance evaluation, a range of legitimate action and inaction is produced at the same time that more socially transformative action is legitimately curtailed—not merely by politics, but by the rules of the field in which public health actors work. Ultimately, meaningful progress on a normative ethical idea like health equity will require both substantial philosophical content and an analysis of what is going on in the rest of society.

Social values and health systems in health policy and systems research: a mixed-method systematic review and evidence map

Because health systems are conceptualized as social systems, embedded in social contexts and shaped by human agency, values are a key factor in health system change. As such, health systems software-including values, norms, ideas and relationships-is considered a foundational focus of the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR). A substantive evidence-base exploring the influence of software factors on system functioning has developed but remains fragmented, with a lack of conceptual clarity and theoretical coherence. This is especially true for work on 'social values' within health systems-for which there is currently no substantive review available. This study reports on a systematic mixed-methods evidence mapping review on social values within HPSR. The study reaffirms the centrality of social values within HPSR and highlights significant evidence gaps. Research on social values in low- and middle-income country contexts is exceedingly rare (and mostly produced by authors in high-income countries), particularly within the limited body of empirical studies on the subject. In addition, few HPS researchers are drawing on available social science methodologies that would enable more in-depth empirical work on social values. This combination (over-representation of high-income country perspectives and little empirical work) suggests that the field of HPSR is at risk of developing theoretical foundations that are not supported by empirical evidence nor broadly generalizable. Strategies for future work on social values in HPSR are suggested, including: countering pervasive ideas about research hierarchies that prize positivist paradigms and systems hardware-focused studies as more rigorous and relevant to policy-makers; utilizing available social science theories and methodologies; conceptual development to build common framings of key concepts to guide future research, founded on quality empirical research from diverse contexts; and using empirical evidence to inform the development of operationalizable frameworks that will support rigorous future research on social values in health systems.

Ethical decision-making in biopharmaceutical research and development: applying values using the TRIP & TIPP model

“Values-based decision-making” frameworks and models are widely described in the literature in various disciplines, including healthcare settings. However, there is a paucity of literature on the application of systematic methods or models in the biopharmaceutical research and development (R&D) field of drugs, vaccines, and immunotherapeutics.

In this report, we describe our model that uses company values along with framing questions in a five-step process to guide ethical decisions in the vaccines R&D context. The model uniquely supports practical prospective decision-making: employees are engaged as moral agents applying values and principles to guide their decision in a specific situation. We illustrate, by way of case studies, how the model is being used in practice. The consistent application of company values during decision-making calls upon employees to use their judgment, therefore reducing the need for the organization to systematically generate written instructions. Finally, we report on preliminary results of model adoption by teams within our organization, discuss its limitations and likely future contribution. We applied our model within a vaccines R&D context and believe its use can be extended to other areas where business-related decisions impact patients.

Is 'health equity' bad for our health? A qualitative empirical ethics study of public health policy-makers' perspectives

OBJECTIVES

'Social justice' and 'health equity' are core values in public health. Yet, despite their normative character, the numerous normative accounts of social justice and equity are rarely acknowledged, meaning that these values are often unaccompanied by an explanation of what they require in practice. The objective of this study was to bridge this normative scholarship with information about how these 'core values' are integrated and interpreted by Canadian public health policy-makers.

METHODS

Twenty qualitative interviews with public health policy-makers recruited from public health organizations in Canada, analyzed using an 'empirical ethics' methodology that combined empirical data with normative ethical analysis involving theories of justice.

FINDINGS

Participants viewed health equity and social justice as distinct, where the former was perceived as 'clearer'. Health equity was conceptualized as focusing attention to 'proximal' disparities in access to services and 'materialistic' determinants of health, whereas social justice was conceptualized as focusing on structural issues that lead to disadvantage. Health equity was characterized as 'neutral' and 'comfortable', whereas social justice was characterized as 'political' and 'uncomfortable'.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that health equity dominates the discursive space wherein justice-based considerations are brought to bear on public health activities. As a result, 'uncomfortable' justice-based considerations of power imbalances and systematic disadvantage can be eschewed in practice in favour of attending to 'proximal' inequities. These findings reveal the problematic ways in which considerations of justice and equity are, and are not, being taken up in public health policy, which in turn may have negative implications for the public's health.

Values in Health Policy - A Concept Analysis

Background: Despite the significant role "values" play in decision-making no definition or attributes regarding the concept have been provided in health policy-making. This study aimed to clarify the defining attributes of a concept of value and its irrelevant structures in health policy-making. We anticipate our findings will help reduce the semantic ambiguities associated with the use of "values" and other concepts such as principles, criteria, attitudes, and beliefs.

Methods: An extensive search of literature was carried out using electronic data base and library. The overall search strategy yielded about 1540 articles and 450 additional records. Based on traditional qualitative research, studies were purposefully selected and the coding of articles continued until data saturation was reached. Accordingly, 31 articles, 2 books, and 5 other documents were selected for the review. We applied Walker and Avant’s method of concept analysis in studying the phenomenon. Definitions, applications, attributes, antecedents, and consequences of the concept of "value in health policy-making" were extracted. We also identified similarities and differences that exist between and within them.

Results: We identified eight major attributes of "value in health policy-making": ideological origin, affect one’s choices, more resistant to change over time, source of motivation, ability to sacrifice one’s interest, goal-oriented nature for community, trans-situational and subjectivity. Other features pinpointed include alternatives, antecedents, and consequences. Alternative, antecedents and consequences case may have more or fewer attributes or may lack one of these attributes and at the same time have other distinctive ones.

Conclusion: Despite the use of the value framework, ambiguities still persist in providing definition of the concept value in health policy-making. Understanding the concept of value in health policy-making may provide extra theoretical support to decision-makers in their policy-making process, to help avoid poor policy formulation and wastage of limited resources.

Analyses of Acceptability Judgments Made Toward the Use of Nanocarrier-Based Targeted Drug Delivery: Interviews with Researchers and Research Trainees in the Field of New Technologies

The assessment of nanotechnology applications such as nanocarrier-based targeted drug delivery (TDD) has historically been based mostly on toxicological and safety aspects. The use of nanocarriers for TDD, a leading-edge nanomedical application, has received little study from the angle of experts' perceptions and acceptability, which may be reflected in how TDD applications are developed. In recent years, numerous authors have maintained that TDD assessment should also take into account impacts on ethical, environmental, economic, legal, and social (E³LS) issues in order to lead to socially responsible innovation. Semi-structured interviews (n = 22) were conducted with French and Canadian researchers and research trainees with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and involved in research related to emerging technologies. The interviews focussed on scenarios presenting two types of TDD nanocarriers (carbon, synthetic DNA) in two contexts of use (lung cancer, seasonal flu). Content and inductive analyses of interviews showed how facets of perceived impacts such as health, environment, social cohabitation, economy, life and death, representations of the human being and nature, and technoscience were weighed in acceptability judgments. The analyses also revealed that contextual factors related to device (nature of the treatment), to use (gravity of the disease), and to user (culture) influenced the weighting assigned to perceived impacts and thus contributed to variability in interviewees' judgments of acceptability. Giving consideration to researchers' perspective could accompany first steps of implementation and development of nanomedicine by producing a first, but wide, picture of the acceptability of nanocarrier-based TDD.

Framework for ethical decision-making based on mission, vision and values of the institution

The authors led the development of a framework for ethical decision-making for an Academic Health Sciences Centre. They understood the existing mission, vision, and values statement (MVVs) of the centre as a foundational assertion that embodies an ethical commitment of the institution. Reflecting the Patient and Family Centred Model of Care the institution is living, the MVVs is a suitable base on which to construct an ethics framework. The resultant framework consists of a set of questions for each of the MVVs. Users of the framework are expected to identify two or more possible decisions to address the issue at hand and then, by applying the provided sequence of questions to each, examine these options and determine the overall ethically preferable decision. The construction of such a framework requires the creative involvement of the institution's staff. Thus the development of the framework can represent a training process in ethical decision-making as well as advance the ethical atmosphere of the institution. This novel approach has the advantage of placing the MVVs on active duty, at the centre of ethical decision-making, and lifts it from its otherwise relative obscurity in most institutions.

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of ethical considerations in health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: The study consisted of two complementary approaches: (a) a systematic review of the literature; and (b) an eighteen-item online survey that was distributed to fifty-six HTA agencies affiliated with the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment.

Results: The review identified twenty-six relevant articles. The most often cited barriers in the literature were: scarcity, heterogeneity and complexity of ethical analysis methods; challenges in translating ethical analysis results into knowledge that is useful for decision makers; and lack of organizational support in terms of required expertise, time and financial resources. The most frequently cited facilitators included: usage of value-based appraisal methods, stakeholder and public engagement, enhancement of practice guidelines, ethical expertise, and educational interventions.

Representatives of twenty-six (46.5 percent) agencies from nineteen countries completed the survey. A median of 10 percent (interquartile range, 5 percent to 50 percent) of the HTA products produced by the agencies was reported to include an assessment of ethical aspects. The most commonly perceived barriers were: limited ethical knowledge and expertise, insufficient time and resources, and difficulties in finding ethical evidence or using ethical guidelines. Educational interventions, demand by policy makers, and involvement of ethicists in HTA were the most commonly perceived facilitators.

Conclusions: Our results emphasize the importance of simplification of ethics methodology and development of good practice guidelines in HTA, as well as capacity building for engaging HTA practitioners in ethical analyses.

Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: a study protocol describing a multimedia-based deliberative method

Background

The design of health technologies relies on assumptions that affect how they will be implemented, such as intended use, complexity, impact on user autonomy, and appropriateness. Those who design and implement technologies make several ethical and social assumptions on behalf of users and society more broadly, but there are very few tools to examine prospectively whether such assumptions are warranted and how the public define and appraise the desirability of health innovations. This study protocol describes a three-year study that relies on a multimedia-based prospective method to support public deliberations that will enable a critical examination of the social and ethical issues of health technology design.

Methods

The first two steps of our mixed-method study were completed: relying on a literature review and the support of our multidisciplinary expert committee, we developed scenarios depicting social and technical changes that could unfold in three thematic areas within a 25-year timeframe; and for each thematic area, we created video clips to illustrate prospective technologies and short stories to describe their associated dilemmas. Using this multimedia material, we will: conduct four face-to-face deliberative workshops with members of the public (n = 40) who will later join additional participants (n = 25) through an asynchronous online forum; and analyze and integrate three data sources: observation, group deliberations, and a self-administered participant survey.

Discussion

This study protocol will be of interest to those who design and assess public involvement initiatives and to those who examine the implementation of health innovations. Our premise is that using user-friendly tools in a deliberative context that foster participants’ creativity and reflexivity in pondering potential technoscientific futures will enable our team to analyze a range of normative claims, including some that may prove problematic and others that may shed light over potentially more valuable design options. This research will help fill an important knowledge gap; intervening earlier in technological development could help reduce undesirable effects and inform the design and implementation of more appropriate innovations.

Inequities in access to pediatric epilepsy surgery: a bioethical framework

Epilepsy is a common childhood condition associated with a considerable medical and psychosocial burden. Children in whom medical treatment fails to reduce seizure burden represent an especially vulnerable patient population because prolonged, uncontrolled seizures are associated with poor developmental and neurocognitive outcomes. Surgical treatment in the form of cortical resection, functional disconnection, or neuromodulation may alleviate or significantly reduce the disease burden for a subset of these patients. However, there remains a dichotomy between the perceived benefits of surgery and the implementation of surgical strategies in the management of medically intractable epilepsy. The current paper presents an analysis of the bioethical implications of existing inequities in access to pediatric epilepsy surgery that result from inconsistent referral practices and discrepant evaluation techniques. The authors provide a basic bioethical framework composed of 5 primary expectations to inform public, institutional, and personal policies toward the provision of epilepsy surgery to afflicted children.

Opening the black box of ethics policy work: evaluating a covert practice

Hospital ethics committees (HECs) and ethicists generally describe themselves as engaged in four domains of practice: case consultation, research, education, and policy work. Despite the increasing attention to quality indicators, practice standards, and evaluation methods for the other domains, comparatively little is known or published about the policy work of HECs or ethicists. This article attempts to open the "black box" of this health care ethics practice by providing two detailed case examples of ethics policy reviews. We also describe the development and application of an evaluation strategy to assess the quality of ethics policy review work, and to enable continuous improvement of ethics policy review processes. Given the potential for policy work to impact entire patient populations and organizational systems, it is imperative that HECs and ethicists develop clearer roles, responsibilities, procedural standards, and evaluation methods to ensure the delivery of consistent, relevant, and high-quality ethics policy reviews.

Health Policy and Ethics: A Catholic Contribution in a Pluralistic Society

Health policy generally seeks to improve the overall health of people in society. Since public health policy involves human values, decisions, and actions, it is inescapably ethical. In recent years there has been a growing awareness of the need for a systematic approach to the ethical analysis of public policy. Some government health-policy statements attempt to provide ethical frameworks. In our pluralistic societies, however, these tend to be pragmatic and lack a solid grounding in an adequate understanding of the human person. This could lead to justifying what is popular rather than what is ethical. This article attempts to show how a Catholic moral approach, which provides a solid foundation for ethics, can make a significant contribution to a discussion of health-policy ethics in a pluralistic society.