Scarce resources, public health and professional care: the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbating bioethical conflicts - findings from global qualitative expert interviews

BACKGROUND

Since spring 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has spread worldwide, causing dramatic global consequences in terms of medical, care, economic, cultural and bioethical dimensions. Although the resulting conflicts initially appeared to be quite similar in most countries, a closer look reveals a country-specific intensification and differentiation of issues. Our study focused on understanding and highlighting bioethical conflicts that were triggered, exposed or intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs).

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with 39 ethics experts from 34 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, Tunisia, Türkiye, United-Kingdom, United States of America, Zambia) from November 2020 to March 2021. We analysed the interviews using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The scale of the bioethical challenges between countries differed, as did coping strategies for meeting these challenges. Data analysis focused on: a) Resource scarcity in clinical contexts: Scarcity of medical resources led to the need to prioritize the care of some COVID-19 patients in clinical settings globally. Because this entails the postponement of treatment for other patients, the possibility of serious present or future harm to deprioritized patients was identified as a relevant issue. b) Health literacy: The pandemic demonstrated the significance of health literacy and its influence on the effective implementation of health measures. c) Inequality and vulnerable groups: The pandemic highlighted the context-sensitivity and intersectionality of the vulnerabilities of women and children in LMICs and the aged in HICs. d) Conflicts surrounding healthcare professionals: The COVID-19 outbreak underscored the tough working conditions for nurses and other health professionals, raising awareness of the need for reform.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic exposed pre-existing structural problems in LMICs and HICs. Without neglecting individual contextual factors in the observed countries, we created a mosaic of different voices of experts in bioethics across the globe, drawing attention to the need for international solidarity in the context of a global crisis.

COVID-19 vaccine equity in doldrums: Good governance deficits

This paper explores whether inequities in access to COVID-19 vaccines can be attributed to governance deficits, particularly for developing and emerging countries where poor governance is widespread, but also for developed countries, where governments' performance fell short of expectations. These shared performance deficits beg questions about the impact of governance quality as well as the interplay of ethics in governance when life-or-death decisions must be made. It also explores the impact of COVID-19 on development, especially in the areas of poverty and employment. The findings of the paper show that there is a positive correlation between vaccine equity and good governance, meaning that countries with higher scores in governance rankings have more access to vaccines and have vaccinated most of their populations. Similarly, countries with relatively lower scores in governance rankings have poor access to and distribution of vaccines and have only covered a limited number of their people. The paper further points to disastrous societal impacts of COVID-19 vaccine inequity on poverty and employment, which have hindered global development.

Making global health 'work': Frontline workers' labour in research and interventions

This Special Issue of Global Public Health draws on the concept of 'body work' among those employed to support operationalising, researching, and implementing global health while in direct contact with the bodies of others. This collection brings into sharp focus the specific forms of labour of those occupying positions as frontline workers - those who make global health work. Making Global Health Work includes authors from diverse backgrounds, disciplines, and geographies. Through compelling ethnographies, qualitative interviews, and focus group discussions, they explore 'body work' globally, including: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Myanmar, Nigeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tanzania, Thailand, The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), The Gambia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. These papers demonstrate that proximity to, and work on, the bodies of others engenders specific forms of (physical, emotional, mental, social, ethical, and political) labour, which occur not only in emergencies and pandemics, but also throughout the quotidian practice of global health. Making Global Health Work provides insights into the provision of maternal healthcare, treatment of multidrug resistant tuberculosis, rapid HIV testing programmes, sleeping sickness and polio eradication campaigns, mass drug administration clinical trials, epidemic preparedness and response, and the management and care of dead bodies. These papers argue for greater attention by global health actors on frontline workers in management of the complexities involved in making global health work.

COVID-19 vaccine equity: a health systems and policy perspective

Introduction

The global COVID-19 vaccine rollout has highlighted inequities in the accessibility of countries to COVID-19 vaccines. Populations in low- and middle-income countries have found it difficult to have access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Areas covered

This perspective provides analyses on historical and contemporary policy trends of vaccine development and immunization programs, including the current COVID-19 vaccination drive, and governance challenges. Moreover, we also provide a comparative health system analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine deployment in some countries from different continents. It recommends that the international Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) partnership requires a strong governance mechanism and urgent financial investment.

Expert opinion

All WHO member states should agree on technology transfer and voluntary license-sharing via a commonly governed technology access pool and supported by a just Intellectual Property regime. Contextualized, dynamic understandings and country-specific versions of health systems strengthening are needed to improve vaccine equity in a sustainable matter.

Considering equity in global health collaborations: A qualitative study on experiences of equity

International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

Research for Health Justice: an ethical framework linking global health research to health equity

Global health research should generate new knowledge to improve the health and well-being of those considered disadvantaged and marginalised. This goal motivates much of the global health research being undertaken today. Yet simply funding and conducting global health research will not necessarily generate the knowledge needed to help reduce health disparities between and within countries. Global health research grants programmes and projects must be structured in a particular way to generate that type of information. But how exactly should they be designed to do so? Through a programme of ethics research starting in 2009, an ethical framework called Research for Health Justice was developed that provides guidance to global health researchers and funders on how to design research projects and grants programmes to promote global health equity. It provides guidance on, for example, what research populations and questions ought to be selected, what research capacity strengthening ought to be performed and what post-study benefits ought to be provided. This paper describes how the ‘research for health justice’ framework was generated and pulls together a body of work spanning the last decade to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date version of its guidance.

Law, Virtue, and Public Health Powers

This article contributes to philosophical reflections on public health law by drawing on virtue jurisprudence, which rests on the straightforward observation that a political community and its laws will inevitably shape the character of its officials and subjects, and that an excellent character is indispensable to fulfilment. Thus, the law is properly set to encourage virtue and discourage vice. This opens a new perspective onto the ultimate purpose of public health law that is human flourishing. The means of pursuing this end is to entrust public health powers to officials to virtuously serve the common good, of which population health is one of its most important constituents, within the bounds of the law of the land. This article calls for the adoption of a Prudent Public Health Official standard into the law, in order to cultivate prudent, just, courageous and temperate characters in officialdom. Interestingly, this standard already chimes with certain pre-existing core principles of public health judicial doctrine in the USA, the European Union and the UK.

Mapping experiences and perspectives of equity in international health collaborations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Whilst global health research often involves international collaborations, achieving or promoting equity within collaborations remains a key challenge, despite established conceptual approaches and the development of frameworks and guidelines to promote equity. There have also been several empirical studies documenting researchers' experiences of inequity and views on what is required to advance equity in global health collaborations. While these empirical studies provide critical insights, there has been no attempt to systematically synthetize what constitutes equity and how it can be achieved. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies, opinion and editorial pieces about what equity is and how it can be promoted in international collaborations.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to explore domains of equity in international health collaborations. This review included qualitative studies and opinion pieces or editorial pieces on equity in international health collaborations. We mapped the data and identified common themes using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

This initial search retrieved a total of 7611 papers after removing duplicates. A total of 11 papers were included in this review, 10 empirical studies and 1 editorial piece. We conducted our search between October - November 2019. We identified 10 key domains which are important for promoting equity in international collaborations: funding; capacity building; authorship; sample ownership and export; trust; research agreement; acknowledging inequality; recognition and communication.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggest that for international collaborations to be considered more equitable, it must at least consider the 10 domains we highlighted. The 10 domains map onto five key aspects of social justice theory, namely avoiding unequal power relations like subordination, group recognition and affirmation, promoting the well-being of all, inclusion in decision-making and ensuring self-development.

Global Justice Index Report 2020

The Global Justice Index is a multiyear research project conducted at the Fudan-IAS to conceptualize and measure each country’s contribution to achieving greater global justice. In 2019, we completed our research project on first-year achievements, with the rankings of nation-states at the global level based on data from 2010 to 2017. This was published titled the “Global Justice Index Report” in Chinese Political Science Review (Vol. 5, No. 3, 2020). The “Global Justice Index Report 2020” is the second annual report based on our work analyzing data from 2010 to 2018, which was concluded in 2020. In order to better measure each country’s performance and contribution to achieving greater global justice, compared to the first edition published in 2020, we have improved the model, added the refugee issue to expand the issue areas to 10, and added new indicators, regional analysis and comparison in this report. The report comprises five main sections. In the introduction, we discuss the development of the conceptual framework and evaluative principles to justify our selection of dimensions and indicators for measurement. Next, in the section of methodology, we discuss the production, normalization, and aggregation of the raw data and the generation of the final results. In the findings section, we report the data, indicators and our results for the ten issues, and provide regional comparisons. And then, in the following section we present the main results, and report the ranking of each country’s contribution to achieving greater global justice. In the final section, we discuss the applications and limitations of the index, and its potential further research trajectories.

Positive Public Health Ethics: Toward Flourishing and Resilient Communities and Individuals

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global contagion of unprecedented proportions and health, economic, and social consequences. As with many health problems, its impact is uneven. This article argues the COVID-19 pandemic is a global health injustice due to moral failures of national governments and international organizations to prepare for, prevent and control it. Global and national health communities had a moral obligation to act in accordance with the current state of knowledge of pandemic preparedness. This obligation-a positive duty to develop and implement systems to reduce threats to and safeguard individuals' and, communities' abilities to flourish-stems from theories of global health justice and governance. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed and amplified the fragility and deficiencies in our global and domestic health institutions and systems. Moving forward, positive public health ethics is needed to set ethical standards for building and operating robust public health systems for resilient individuals and communities.

Individual Responsibilities in Partial Compliance: Skilled Health Worker Emigration from Under-Served Regions

One of the ways to address the effects of skilled worker emigration is to restrict the movement of skilled workers. However, even if skilled workers have responsibilities to assist their compatriots, what if other parties, such as affluent countries or source country governments, do not fulfil their fair share of responsibilities? This discussion raises an interesting problem about how to think of individual responsibilities under partial compliance where other agents (including affluent countries, developing states, or other individuals) do not fulfil their fair share of responsibilities. What is fair to expect from them? Taking health worker emigration as a case in point, I discuss whether the individual health workers’ fair share of responsibilities to address basic health care needs decreases or increases when the other parties do not fulfil their share. First, I review the responsibilities that different stakeholders may hold. Second, I argue that there are strong reasons against increasing or decreasing health workers’ fair share of responsibilities in a situation of partial compliance. I also argue that it is unfair for non-complier states to enforce health workers to fulfil their fair share or take up the slack.

Global health ethics: critical reflections on the contours of an emerging field, 1977-2015

BACKGROUND

The field of bioethics has evolved over the past half-century, incorporating new domains of inquiry that signal developments in health research, clinical practice, public health in its broadest sense and more recently sensitivity to the interdependence of global health and the environment. These extensions of the reach of bioethics are a welcome response to the growth of global health as a field of vital interest and activity.

METHODS

This paper provides a critical interpretive review of how the term "global health ethics" has been used and defined in the literature to date to identify ethical issues that arise and need to be addressed when deliberating on and working to improve the discourse on ethical issues in health globally.

RESULTS

Selected publications were analyzed by year of publication and geographical distribution, journal and field, level of engagement, and ethical framework. Of the literature selected, 151 articles (88%) were written by authors in high-income countries (HIC), as defined by the World Bank country classifications, 8 articles (5%) were written by authors in low- or middle-income countries (LMIC), and 13 articles (7%) were collaborations between authors in HIC and LMIC. All of the articles selected except one from 1977 were published after 1998. Literature on global health ethics spiked considerably from the early 2000s, with the highest number in 2011. One hundred twenty-seven articles identified were published in academic journals, 1 document was an official training document, and 44 were chapters in published books. The dominant journals were the American Journal of Bioethics (n = 10), Developing World Bioethics (n = 9), and Bioethics (n = 7). We coded the articles by level of engagement within the ethical domain at different levels: (1) interpersonal, (2) institutional, (3) international, and (4) structural. The ethical frameworks at use corresponded to four functional categories: those examining practical or narrowly applied ethical questions; those concerned with normative ethics; those examining an issue through a single philosophical tradition; and those comparing and contrasting insights from multiple ethical frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

This critical interpretive review is intended to delineate the current contours and revitalize the conversation around the future charge of global health ethics scholarship.

Genomics research in Africa and its impact on global health: insights from African researchers

Africa may be heading for an era of genomics medicine. There are also expectations that genomics may play a role in reducing global health inequities. However, the near lack of genomics studies on African populations has led to concerns that genomics may widen, rather than close, the global health inequity gap. To prevent a possible genomics divide, the genomics 'revolution' has been extended to Africa. This is motivated, in part, by Africa's rich genetic diversity and high disease burden. What remains unclear, however, are the prospects of using genomics technology for healthcare in Africa. In this qualitative study, we explored the views of 17 genomics researchers in Africa on the prospects and challenges of genomics medicine in Africa. Interviewees were researchers in Africa who were involved in genomics research projects in Africa. Analysis of in-depth interviews suggest that genomics medicine may have an impact on disease surveillance, diagnosis, treatment and prevention. However, Africa's capacity for genomics medicine, current research priorities in genomics and the translation of research findings will be key defining factors impacting on the ability of genomics medicine to improve healthcare in Africa.

Ethical responsibilities of health research funders to advance global health justice

Research funders from high-income countries have an ethical obligation to support health research in low and middle-income countries that promotes justice in global health. Conceptual work from bioethics proposes funders should do so through their design of grants programs, investments, and grants management. That work has begun to specify the content of funders' ethical responsibility with regards to health systems research, but it has thus far not been informed by their practice. As a first step to bridge that gap, this paper focuses on health systems research funders' design of grants programs. It aims to test the content of funders' proposed ethical responsibility against recent empirical work describing how they design their health systems research grants programs to help address global health disparities. Based on that analysis, recommendations are made for how to better articulate the content of health systems research funders' obligation. Such recommendations may be pertinent to funders of other types of international research. The paper also provides an initial picture of how well health systems research grants programs' designs may align with the ideals of global health justice.

Governance of Transnational Global Health Research Consortia and Health Equity

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia of institutions from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries that undertake programs of research. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Although such consortia typically aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries, what is required for them to do so has not been clearly defined. This article takes a conceptual approach to explore how the governance of transnational global health research consortia should be structured to advance health equity. To do so, it applies an account called shared health governance to derive procedural and substantive guidance. A checklist based on this guidance is proposed to assist research consortia determine where their governance practices strongly promote equity and where they may fall short.

Work-Recreation Balance, Health-Promoting Lifestyles and Suboptimal Health Status in Southern China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Suboptimal health status (SHS)—an intermediate state between health and illness—refers to functional somatic symptoms that are medically undiagnosed. Although SHS has become a great challenge for global public health, very little about its etiology and mechanisms are known. Work-recreation balance is a part of work−life balance, and is related to stress which greatly influences health status. We therefore carried out a cross-sectional investigation between 2012 and 2013 within a clustered sample of 24,475 individuals aged 15−60 years from a population in southern China. In so doing, we hoped to illuminate the associations between work-recreation balance conditions, healthy lifestyles, and SHS. Work-recreation balance conditions were categorically defined by frequency (“rarely, sometimes, or always”). Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP-II) was used to evaluate the level of healthy lifestyles, and the medical examination report and Sub-Health Measurement Scale V1.0 (SHMS V1.0) were both used to evaluate health status. The ratio of SHS (46.3%) is higher than health status (18.4%) or disease status (35.3%). Overall, 4.9% of respondents reported the lowest level of work-recreation balance, and they scored lower on both the HPLP-II and SHMS V1.0 compared with those who frequently maintained a work-recreation balance. Significant association was found between work-recreation balance behaviors and healthy lifestyles (p < 0.001) after demographic adjustment. In comparison with those reporting a frequent work-recreation balance, individuals whose work-recreation balance was categorically “rare” were 1.69 times as likely to develop SHS (odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.49–1.92), and those with infrequent work-recreation balance (“sometimes”) were 1.71 times more likely to develop SHS (OR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.62–1.81). These findings suggest that work-recreation balance conditions are significantly associated with, and seem to be accurate behavioral indicia of a healthy lifestyle. Poor work-recreation balance is associated with increased risk for SHS; thus, a healthier lifestyle that maintains a work-recreation balance should be promoted in order to reduce the development of SHS or disease in southern China.

Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model

Growing consensus that health research funders should align their investments with national research priorities presupposes that such national priorities exist and are just. Arguably, justice requires national health research priority-setting to promote health equity. Such a position is consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization and at global ministerial summits that health research should serve to reduce health inequalities between and within countries. Thus far, no specific requirements for equity-oriented research priority-setting have been described to guide policymakers. As a step towards the explication and defence of such requirements, we propose that deep inclusion is a key procedural component of equity-oriented research priority-setting. We offer a model of deep inclusion that was developed by applying concepts from work on deliberative democracy and development ethics. This model consists of three dimensions--breadth, qualitative equality, and high-quality non-elite participation. Deep inclusion is captured not only by who is invited to join a decision-making process but also by how they are involved and by when non-elite stakeholders are involved. To clarify and illustrate the proposed dimensions, we use the sustained example of health systems research. We conclude by reviewing practical challenges to achieving deep inclusion. Despite the existence of barriers to implementation, our model can help policymakers and other stakeholders design more inclusive national health research priority-setting processes and assess these processes' depth of inclusion.

In Search of Global Health Justice: A Need to Reinvigorate Institutions and Make International Law

The recent outbreak of Ebola in West Africa has killed thousands of people, including healthcare workers. African responses have been varied and largely ineffective. The WHO and the international community's belated responses have yet to quell the epidemic. The crisis is characteristic of a failure to properly comply with the International Health Regulations 2005. More generally, it stems from a failure of international health justice as articulated by a range of legal institutions and instruments, and it should prompt us to question the state and direction of approaches to the governance of global public health. This paper queries what might be done to lift global public health as a policy arena to the place of prominence that it deserves. It argues that there are at least two critical reasons for the past, present and easily anticipated future failings of the global public health regime. After exploring those, it then articulates a new way forward, identifying three courses of action that might be adopted in realising better health outcomes and global health justice, namely value, institutional and legal reform.

From conceptual pluralism to practical agreement on policy: global responsibility for global health

BACKGROUND

As the human cost of the global economic crisis becomes apparent the ongoing discussions surrounding the post-2015 global development framework continue at a frenzied pace. Given the scale and scope of increased globalization moving forward in a post-Millennium Development Goals era, to protect and realize health equity for all people, has never been more challenging or more important. The unprecedented nature of global interdependence underscores the importance of proposing policy solutions that advance realizing global responsibility for global health.

DISCUSSION

This article argues for advancing global responsibility for global health through the creation of a Global Fund for Health. It suggests harnessing the power of the exceptional response to the combined epidemics of AIDS, TB and Malaria, embodied in the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, to realize an expanded, reconceptualized Global Fund for Health. However this proposal creates both an analytical quandary embedded in conceptual pluralism and a practical dilemma for the scope and raison d'etre of a new Global Fund for Health. To address these issues we offer a logical framework for moving from conceptual pluralism in the theories supporting global responsibility for health to practical agreement on policy to realize this end. We examine how the innovations flowing from this exceptional response can be coupled with recent ideas and concepts, for example a global social protection floor, a Global Health Constitution or a Framework Convention for Global Health, that share the global responsibility logic that underpins a Global Fund for Health.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2014 Lancet Commission on Global Governance for Health Report asks whether a single global health protection fund would be better for global health than the current patchwork of global and national social transfers. We concur with this suggestion and argue that there is much room for practical agreement on a Global Fund for Health that moves from the conceptual level into policies and practice that advance global health. The issues of shared responsibility and mutual accountability feature widely in the post-2015 discussions and need to be addressed in a coherent manner. Our article argues why and how a Global Fund for Health effectuates this, thus advancing global responsibility for global health.

A comparison of justice frameworks for international research

Justice frameworks have been developed for international research that provide guidance on the selection of research targets, ancillary care, research capacity strengthening, and post-trial benefits. Yet there has been limited comparison of the different frameworks. This paper examines the underlying aims and theoretical bases of three such frameworks--the fair benefits framework, the human development approach and research for health justice--and considers how their aims impact their guidance on the aforementioned four ethical issues. It shows that the frameworks' underlying objectives vary across two dimensions. First, whether they seek to prevent harmful or exploitative international research or to promote international research with health benefits for low and middle-income countries. Second, whether they address justice at the micro level or the macro level. The fair benefits framework focuses on reforming contractual elements in individual international research collaborations to ensure fairness, whereas the other two frameworks aim to connect international research with the reduction of global health inequities. The paper then highlights where there is overlap between the frameworks' requirements and where differences in the strength and content of the obligations they identify arise as a result of their varying objectives and theoretical bases. In doing so, it does not offer a critical comparison of the frameworks but rather seeks to add clarity to current debates on justice and international research by showing how they are positioned relative to one another.

Global justice and health systems research in low- and middle-income countries

Scholarship focusing on how international research can contribute to justice in global health has primarily explored requirements for the conduct of clinical trials. Yet health systems research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has increasingly been identified as vital to the reduction of health disparities between and within countries. This paper expands an existing ethical framework based on the health capability paradigm - research for health justice - to externally-funded health systems research in LMICs. It argues that a specific form of health systems research in LMICs is required if the enterprise is to advance global health equity. "Research for health justice" requirements for priority setting, research capacity strengthening, and post-study benefits in health systems research are derived in light of the field's distinctive characteristics. Specific obligations are established for external research actors, including governments, funders, sponsors, and investigators. How these framework requirements differ from those for international clinical research is discussed.

Good medical ethics, justice and provincial globalism

The summer 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in Western Africa illustrates global health's striking inequalities. Globalisation has also increased pandemics, and disparate health system conditions mean that where one falls ill or is injured in the world can mean the difference between quality care, substandard care or no care at all, between full recovery, permanent ill effects and death. Yet attention to the normative underpinnings of global health justice and distribution remains, despite some important exceptions, inadequate in medical ethics, bioethics and political philosophy. We need a theoretical foundation on which to build a more just world. Provincial globalism (PG), grounded in capability theory, offers a foundation; it provides the components of a global health justice framework that can guide implementation. Under PG, all persons possess certain health entitlements. Global health justice requires progressively securing this health capabilities threshold for every person.

Linking international clinical research with stateless populations to justice in global health

BACKGROUND

In response to calls to expand the scope of research ethics to address justice in global health, recent scholarship has sought to clarify how external research actors from high-income countries might discharge their obligation to reduce health disparities between and within countries. An ethical framework-'research for health justice'-was derived from a theory of justice (the health capability paradigm) and specifies how international clinical research might contribute to improved health and research capacity in host communities. This paper examines whether and how external funders, sponsors, and researchers can fulfill their obligations under the framework.

METHODS

Case study research was undertaken on the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit's (SMRU) vivax malaria treatment trial, which was performed on the Thai-Myanmar border with Karen and Myanmar refugees and migrants. We conducted nineteen in-depth interviews with trial stakeholders, including investigators, trial participants, community advisory board members, and funder representatives; directly observed at trial sites over a five-week period; and collected trial-related documents for analysis.

RESULTS

The vivax malaria treatment trial drew attention to contextual features that, when present, rendered the 'research for health justice' framework's guidance partially incomplete. These insights allowed us to extend the framework to consider external research actors' obligations to stateless populations. Data analysis then showed that framework requirements are largely fulfilled in relation to the vivax malaria treatment trial by Wellcome Trust (funder), Oxford University (sponsor), and investigators. At the same time, this study demonstrates that it may be difficult for long-term collaborations to shift the focus of their research agendas in accordance with the changing burden of illness in their host communities and to build the independent research capacity of host populations when working with refugees and migrants. Obstructive factors included the research funding environment and staff turnover due to resettlement or migration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that obligations for selecting research targets, research capacity strengthening, and post-trial benefits that link clinical trials to justice in global health can be upheld by external research actors from high-income countries when working with stateless populations in LMICs. However, meeting certain framework requirements for long-term collaborations may not be entirely feasible.

Ethics and Social Value Judgments in Public Health

The exercise of government powers for the health of its population raises ethical issues, such as public welfare, individual autonomy and freedom, privacy and confidentiality, just distribution of benefits and burdens, transparency, and public accountability. Conflicts among these values often arise and how they should be balanced will vary on a case-by-case basis, weighing costs against benefits. This entry discusses justifications for government action in public health, the tension between individual freedom and public health, issues of distributive justice in public health, and ethical guidelines for public health policymaking.

Cosmopolitanism and foreign policy for health: ethics for and beyond the state

Background

Foreign policy holds great potential to improve the health of a global citizenship. Our contemporary political order is, in part, characterized by sovereign states acting either in opposition or cooperation with other sovereign states. This order is also characterized by transnational efforts to address transnational issues such as those featured so prominently in the area of global health, such as the spread of infectious disease, health worker migration and the movement of health-harming products. These two features of the current order understandably create tension for truly global initiatives.

Discussion

National security has become the dominant ethical frame underlying the health-based foreign policy of many states, despite the transnational nature of many contemporary health challenges. This ethical approach engages global health as a means to achieving national security objectives. Implicit in this ethical frame is the version of humanity that dichotomizes between “us” and “them”. What has been left out of this discourse, for the most part, is the role that foreign policy can play in extending the responsibility of states to protect and promote health of the other, for the sake of the other.

Summary

The principal purpose of this paper is to review arguments for a cosmopolitan ethics of health-based foreign policy. I will argue that health-based foreign policy that is motivated by security interests is lacking both morally and practically to further global health goals. In other words, a cosmopolitan ethic is not only intrinsically superior as a moral ideal, but also has potential to contribute to utilitarian ends. This paper draws on the cosmopolitanism literature to build robust support for foreign policies that contribute to sustainable systems of global health governance.

Ancillary Care: From Theory to Practice in International Clinical Research

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. This article describes how the provision of ancillary care can link international clinical research to the reduction of global health disparities. It identifies the ancillary care obligations supported by a theory of global justice, showing that Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm requires the delivery of ancillary care to trial participants for a limited subset of conditions that cause severe morbidity and mortality. Empirical research on the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit's (SMRU) vivax malaria treatment trial was then undertaken to demonstrate whether and how these obligations might be upheld in a resource-poor setting. Our findings show that fulfilment of the ancillary care obligations is feasible where there is commitment from chief investigators and funders and is strongly facilitated by SMRU's dual role as a research unit and medical non-governmental organization.

Evaluating the capacity of theories of justice to serve as a justice framework for international clinical research

This article investigates whether or not theories of justice from political philosophy, first, support the position that health research should contribute to justice in global health, and second, provide guidance about what is owed by international clinical research (ICR) actors to parties in low- and middle-income countries. Four theories-John Rawls's theory of justice, the rights-based cosmopolitan theories of Thomas Pogge and Henry Shue, and Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm-are evaluated. The article shows that three of the four theories require the conduct of health research for justice in global health. The theories help identify the ends of justice to which ICR is to contribute, but they cannot tell us how to organize ICR to promote these ends. Aside from Ruger's health capability paradigm, the theories also lack an allocative principle for assigning specific duties to specific actors. This creates difficulties for establishing obligations for certain types of ICR actors.

Global health justice and governance

While there is a growing body of work on moral issues and global governance in the fields of global justice and international relations, little work has connected principles of global health justice with those of global health governance for a theory of global health. Such a theory would enable analysis and evaluation of the current global health system and would ethically and empirically ground proposals for reforming it to more closely align with moral values. Global health governance has been framed as an issue of national security, human security, human rights, and global public goods. The global health governance literature is essentially untethered to a theorized framework to illuminate or evaluate governance. This article ties global health justice and ethics to principles for governing the global health realm, developing a theoretical framework for global and domestic institutions and actors.

Shared health governance

Health and Social Justice (Ruger 2009a ) developed the "health capability paradigm," a conception of justice and health in domestic societies. This idea undergirds an alternative framework of social cooperation called "shared health governance" (SHG). SHG puts forth a set of moral responsibilities, motivational aspirations, and institutional arrangements, and apportions roles for implementation in striving for health justice. This article develops further the SHG framework and explains its importance and implications for governing health domestically.