Relational Solidarity and Conflicting Ethics in Dementia Care in Urban India

OBJECTIVES

Using the concept of relational solidarity, we examine how autonomy, equality, dignity, and personhood are practiced in the care of people living with dementia at home in urban India.

METHODS

Video interviews with 19 family carers and 25 health providers conducted in English, Hindi, and Kannada in Bengaluru between March and July 2022. Data were translated into English and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Family carers and providers unanimously agreed that people with dementia should be respected and cared for. Concurrently, they perceived people with dementia as being "like a kid" and used the analogy of a parent-child relationship to understand their care responsibilities. This analogy informed how ethical principles such as personhood and equality were reframed in the relationships between family carers and people with dementia, as well as how carers and providers maintained the safety but undermined the autonomy of people with dementia through restricting their movements inside and outside the home.

DISCUSSION

There can be relational solidarity in dementia care at home in urban India but also contradictions in the interpretations and applications of the ethical principles of autonomy, equality, dignity, and personhood. As such, a more organic, grassroots model of ethical practice is needed to frame care and provide material support to families in India.

Collateral Paternalism and Liberal Critiques of Public Health Policy: Diminishing Theoretical Demandingness and Accommodating the Devil in the Detail

Critical literatures, and public discourses, on public health policies and practices often present fixated concerns with paternalism. In this paper, rather than focus on the question of whether and why intended instances of paternalistic policy might be justified, we look to the wider, real-world socio-political contexts against which normative evaluations of public health must take place. We explain how evaluative critiques of public health policy and practice must be sensitive to the nuance and complexity of policy contexts. This includes sensitivity to the 'imperfect' reach and application of policy, leading to collateral effects including collateral paternalism. We argue that theoretical critiques must temper their demandingness to real-world applicability, allowing for the detail of social and policy contexts, including harm reduction: apparent knock-down objections of paternalism cannot hold if they are limited to an abstract or artificially-isolated evaluation of the reach of a public health intervention.

Solidarity and Community Engagement in Global Health Research

Community engagement (CE) is gaining prominence in global health research. A number of ethical goals-spanning the instrumental, intrinsic, and transformative-have been ascribed to CE in global health research. This paper draws attention to an additional transformative value that CE is not typically linked to but that seems very relevant: solidarity. Both are concerned with building relationships and connecting parties that are distant from one another. This paper first argues that furthering solidarity should be recognized as another ethical goal for CE in global health research. It contends that, over time, CE can build the bases of solidaristic relationships-moral imagination, recognition, understanding, empathy-between researchers and community members. Applying concepts from existing accounts of solidarity, the paper develops preliminary ideas about who should be engaged and how to advance solidarity. The proposed approach is compared to current CE practice in global health research. Finally, the paper briefly considers how solidaristic CE could affect how global health research is performed.

Does Health Promotion Harm the Environment?

Health promotion involves social and environmental interventions designed to benefit and protect health. It often harmfully impacts the environment through air and water pollution, medical waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and other externalities. We consider potential conflicts between health promotion and environmental protection and why and how the healthcare industry might promote health while protecting environments. After probing conflicts between promoting health and protecting the environment we highlight the essential role that environmental resources play in health and healthcare to show that environmental protection is a form of health promotion. We then explore relationships between three radical forms of health promotion and the environment: (1) lowering the human birth rate; (2) transforming the food system; and (3) genetically modifying mosquitos. We conclude that healthcare and other industries and their institutions and leaders have responsibilities to re-consider and modify their priorities, policies, and practices.

Utility and justice in public health

Background

Many public health practitioners and organizations view themselves as engaged in the promotion or achievement of equity. However, discussions around public health frequently assume that practitioners and policy-makers take a utilitarian approach to this work.

Methods

I argue that public health is better understood as a social justice endeavor. I begin by presenting the utility view of public health and then discuss the equity view. This is a theoretical argument, which should help public health to justify interventions for communicable and non-communicable diseases equally, and which contributes to breaking down the 'old/new' public health divide.

Results

This argument captures practitioners' views of the work they are engaged in and allows for the moral and policy justification of important interventions in communicable and non-communicable diseases. Systemic interventions are necessary to remedy high rates of disease among certain groups and, generally, to improve the health of entire populations.

Conclusions

By viewing diseases as partly the result of failures of health protective systems in society, public health may justify interventions in communicable and non-communicable diseases equally. Public health holds a duty to improve the health of the worst-off in society; by prioritizing this group, the health of the whole community may improve.

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.

The Ethical Case for Mandating HPV Vaccination

When the HPV vaccine was released over a decade ago, there was intense opposition to mandating the vaccine, including among bioethics and legal scholars. Some of the original concerns are now obsolete, while other objections continue to present an obstacle to mandating the vaccine. This essay responds to earlier critiques of mandatory HPV vaccination and offers a series of arguments in support of a vaccine mandate. The first section briefly addresses initial concerns that are no longer relevant. The second section makes the ethical case for mandating HPV vaccination, based on three principles: 1) the best interests of children, 2) solidarity, and 3) health equity. The final section addresses concerns related to implementation of the vaccine, including the validity of linking vaccination to school entry. The essay concludes that we have a moral imperative to protect children from the leading cause of cervical cancer, and that mandating HPV vaccination is the best way to ensure that children of all backgrounds receive the vaccine before they have been exposed to the virus.

A Bridge Back to the Future: Public Health Ethics, Bioethics, and Environmental Ethics

Contemporary biomedical ethics and environmental ethics share a common ancestry in Aldo Leopold's and Van Rensselaer Potter's initial broad visions of a connected biosphere. Over the past five decades, the two fields have become strangers. Public health ethics, a new subfield of bioethics, emerged from the belly of contemporary biomedical ethics and has evolved over the past 25 years. It has moved from its traditional concern with the tension between individual autonomy and community health to a wider focus on social justice and solidarity. Public health has a broad focus that includes individual, community, and environmental health. Public health ethics attends to these broad commitments reflected in the increasing concern with the connectedness of health of individuals to the health of populations, to the health of animals, to the health of the environment; it is well situated to reconnect all three "fields" of ethics to promote a healthier planet.

Right Relation and Right Recognition in Public Health Ethics: Thinking Through the Republic of Health

The further development of public health ethics will be assisted by a more direct engagement with political theory. In this way, the moral vocabulary of the liberal tradition should be supplemented-but not supplanted-by different conceptual and normative resources available from other traditions of political and social thought. This article discusses four lines of further development that the normative conceptual discourse of public health ethics might take. (i) The relational turn. The implications for public health ethics of the new 'ecological' or 'relational' interpretation that is emerging for concepts such as agency, self-identity, autonomy, liberty and justice. (ii) Governing the health commons. The framework of collective action problems is giving way to notions of democratic governance and management of common resources. (iii) The concept of membership. Membership is specified by the notions of equal respect and parity of voice and agency. (iv) The concept of mutuality. Mutuality is specified by the notions of interdependent concern and care.

How do 'Public' Values Influence Individual Health Behaviour? An Empirical-Normative Analysis of Young Men's Discourse Regarding HIV Testing Practices

Philosophical arguments stemming from the public health ethics arena suggest that public health interventions ought to be subject to normative inquiry that considers relational values, including concepts such as solidarity, reciprocity and health equity. As yet, however, the extent to which 'public' values influence the 'autonomous' decisions of the public remains largely unexplored. Drawing on interviews with 50 men in Vancouver, Canada, this study employs a critical discourse analysis to examine participants' decisions and motivations to voluntarily access HIV testing and/or to accept a routine HIV test offer. Within a sub-set of interviews, a transactional discourse emerged in which the decision to test features an arrangement of 'giving and receiving'. Discourses related to notions of solidarity emphasize considerations of justice and positions testing as a 'public' act. Lastly, 'individualistic' discourses focused on individual-level considerations, with less concern for the broader public 'good'. These findings underscore how normative dimensions pertaining to men's decisions to test are dialectically interrelated with the broader social and structural influences on individual and collective health-related behaviour, thereby suggesting a need to advance an explicit empirical-normative research agenda related to population and public health intervention research.

The Ethical Significance of Antimicrobial Resistance

In this paper, we provide a state-of-the-art overview of the ethical challenges that arise in the context of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which includes an introduction to the contributions to the symposium in this issue. We begin by discussing why AMR is a distinct ethical issue, and should not be viewed purely as a technical or medical problem. In the second section, we expand on some of these arguments and argue that AMR presents us with a broad range of ethical problems that must be addressed as part of a successful policy response to emerging drug resistance. In the third section, we discuss how some of these ethical challenges should be addressed, and we argue that this requires contributions from citizens, ethicists, policy makers, practitioners and industry. We conclude with an overview of steps that should be taken in moving forward and addressing the ethical problems of AMR.