Solidarity and Responsibility in Health Care

The reflective measurement model of adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in accordance with normalization process theory (NPT) in coherent and convenient social subgroups: PLS-SEM analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) decrease COVID-19 transmission. Reliability and validity of adherence to NPIs in accordance with normalization process theory (NPT) in coherent and convenient social subgroups using reflective measurement model assessment has not been evaluated.

METHODS

In February 2021, a sample of medical students and people with substance use disorders in treatment as coherent (based on continuous probability distribution) vs. convenient groups (based on convenience, not equal probability) composed of travellers and COVID-19 suspected persons from Split-Dalmatia County (SDC) (n = 656) in the Mediterranean completed self-administered surveys. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to measure reflective model assessment of adherence to NPIs according to NPT.

RESULTS

PLS-SEM reflective model assessment provided two-group specific factors in inverse relationships which determined adherence to NPIs with excellent goodness-of-fit [χ2 = 1.292, df = 1; P = 0.297, CFI = 1, TLI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.011 (90% CI 0-0.105), RMSEA P = 0.604, SRMR = 0.008, Hoelter CN (α = 0.05) = 2322.757]. Significant negative factors covariance estimate (-0.716) revealed an inverse relationship between first (adherence to NPIs and internal locus of control (LoC) (0.640)) and second factor; young adulthood age (≤25) and highest level of education (1362). As the first factor increased the second tended to decrease. LoC is expected potential mechanism by which sex (MLsex = -0.017, SE = 0.007, P < 0.016) and belonging to coherent subgroups (MLgroup = -0.008, SE = 0.003, P = 0.015) can produce indirect effect of adherence to NPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Coherent subgroups had a more pronounced tendency toward integration of NPIs in everyday life. Group factors that facilitate the normalization were higher educated younger adults with a tendency toward external LoC.

Enforcing the right to health in private health systems through Judicialization what can we learn from the scoping review of the cross-national perspective?

BACKGROUND

Private sector acting in healthcare does not remove the public nature of a health system, nor mitigate the right to health as a human right.

METHODS

This scoping review aims to answer the question: what factors influence the pattern of lawsuits seeking to enforce the right to health in private healthcare systems? The search was carried out in Pubmed, SciELO, DOAJ and Scopus.

RESULTS

Out of 464 articles found, after inclusion and exclusion criteria, 30 articles were included. The survey covered 36 different countries and four main factors were identified. The socioeconomic context, the health system model, the incorporation of the right to health in legislation, and the model of regulation of private health.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding these patterns help understanding the difficulties of implementing and guaranteeing universal health. Health systems must be based on responsibility, solidarity, equity, and distributive justice, since the sum of these values generates mutualism. Judicial decision-making regarding to health access must be reasoned on equity and distributive justice, scientific evidence and ethical factors. Even private health systems must be funded in a well-defined ethical platform and social moral valuation.

Cancer prevention in people experiencing homelessness: ethical considerations and experiences from the CANCERLESS project

The incidence of cancer in Europe has been increasing in recent years. Despite this, cancer prevention has remained a low priority in health policies. Cancer is one of the main causes of mortality among people experiencing homelessness, who continue to have difficulties accessing prevention programs. A strategy that has been tested to favor cancer prevention is the health navigator figure. The objective of CANCERLESS project is to implement this model among populations experiencing homelessness in four European countries to foster the prevention and early detection of cancer. In this perspective, a presentation of CANCERLESS project is made, and its ethical aspects are discussed according to the ethics of public health, the ethics of care, solidarity, relational autonomy, and the social recognition of the virtue of just generosity. The ethical foundations of CANCERLESS project are rooted in social justice and in equity in access to health systems in general and cancer screening programs in particular. The ethics of public health guided by utilitarianism are insufficient in serving the interests of the most disadvantaged groups of the population. Hence, it is necessary to resort to relational bioethics that includes the ethics of care and solidarity and that recognizes the moral identity of socially excluded persons, reaffirming their position of equality in society. Relational autonomy therefore provides a broader conception by including the influence of living conditions in decisions. For this reason, the CANCERLESS project opts for a dialogue with those affected to incorporate their preferences and values into decisions about cancer prevention.

Newspaper coverage on solidarity and personal responsibility in the COVID-19 pandemic: A content analysis from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland

Solidarity and personal responsibility have been repeatedly called upon during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study quantifies and contextualizes the use of these terms in newspaper coverage in Germany and German-speaking Switzerland based on n = 640 articles from six functionally equivalent newspapers. The term solidarity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was mentioned in 541/640 articles (84.5%) and was primarily used during phases with high death rates and comparatively stringent policies in place, supporting the idea that solidarity was used to explain restrictive measures to the population and motivate people to comply with these measures. German newspapers published more articles on solidarity than Swiss-German newspapers, consistent with more stringent COVID-19 policies in Germany. Personal responsibility was mentioned in 133/640 articles (20.8%), meaning that the term was less frequently discussed than solidarity. Articles covering personal responsibility included more negative evaluations during phases of high infection rates as compared to phases of low infection rates. Findings indicate that the two terms were, at least to some extent, used in newspaper reporting to contextualize and justify COVID-19 policy during phases of high infection rates. Moreover, the term solidarity was used in a high variety of different contexts and the inherent limits of solidarity were rarely mentioned. Policymakers and journalists need to take this into account for future crises to not jeopardize the positive effects of solidarity.

Rethinking solidarity towards equity in global health: African views

When the COVID-19 pandemic first took the world by storm, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a Solidarity Call to Action to realize equitable global access to COVID-19 health technologies through pooling of knowledge, intellectual property and data. At the dawn of 2022, 70% of rich countries' populations were vaccinated but only 4.6% of poor countries (Our World In Data, Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations, 2022). Vaccine nationalism and rampant self-interest grew and our ineffective global response led to new variants of concern - like Omicron - emerging. Rather than abandon the idea of solidarity in global health, we believe that the international community must embrace it. Solidarity, with its emphasis on relationality and recognition of similarities, could offer fertile ground for building an ethical framework for an interconnected and interdependent world. Such a framework would be better than a framework that focuses principally on individual entitlements. To defend this view, we draw on African relational views of personhood and morality. When humans are conceived of as essentially relational beings, solidarity occupies a central role in moral behaviour. We argue that part of the reason appeals to solidarity have failed may be traced to an inadequate conceptualization of solidarity. For as long as solidarity remains a beautiful notion, practiced voluntarily by generous and kindhearted persons, in a transient manner to respond to specific challenges, it will never be able to offer an adequate framework for addressing inequities in global health in a systematic and permanent way. Drawing on this understanding of solidarity, we propose pathways to respond creatively to the risks we face to ensure equitable access to essential health for all.

Moral Lacunae in the Management of Dual Agency Dilemmas Comment on "Dual Agency in Hospitals: What Strategies Do Managers and Physicians Apply to Reconcile Dilemmas Between Clinical and Economic Considerations?"

Waitzberg and colleagues' participants articulate a wide range of strategies to manage tensions between clinical and economic obligations. There are, however, three notable absences in the data. First, all strategies described by participants are underpinned by the assumption that clinical (and associated administrative) practices need to either align with economic considerations or be made more compatible with them. Second, the dual agency dilemma was framed exclusively as existing at the level of the health care institution, with little attention paid to obligations to broader health systems. Third, there was no evidence of critical questioning of the priorities of the hospitals in which participants work. These absences do not render the strategies used by Weitzberg and colleagues' participants morally "wrong," but they do suggest that people who are deeply embedded in a system might fail to recognise the full range of moral concerns and moral possibilities.

Acceptability of prepayment, social solidarity and cross-subsidies in national health insurance: A mixed methods study in Western Kenya

Introduction

Many low- and middle-income countries are attempting to finance healthcare through voluntary membership of insurance schemes. This study examined willingness to prepay for health care, social solidarity as well as the acceptability of subsidies for the poor as factors that determine enrolment in western Kenya.

Methods

This study employed a sequential mixed method design. We conducted a cross-sectional household survey (n = 1,746), in-depth household interviews (n = 36), 6 FGDs with community stakeholders and key informant interviews (n = 11) with policy makers and implementers in a single county in western Kenya. Social solidarity was defined by willingness to make contributions that would benefit people who were sicker ("risk cross-subsidization") and poorer ("income cross-subsidization"). We also explored participants' preferences related to contribution cost structure - e.g., flat, proportional, progressive, and exemptions for the poor.

Results

Our study found high willingness to prepay for healthcare among those without insurance (87.1%) with competing priorities, low incomes, poor access, and quality of health services, lack of awareness of flexible payment options cited as barriers to enrolment. More than half of respondents expressed willingness to tolerate risk and income cross-subsidization suggesting strong social solidarity, which increased with socio-economic status (SES). Higher SES was also associated with preference for a proportional payment while lower SES with a progressive payment. Few participants, even the poor themselves, felt the poor should be exempt from any payment, due to stigma (being accused of laziness) and fear of losing power in the process of receiving care (having the right to demand care).

Conclusion

Although there was a high willingness to prepay for healthcare, numerous barriers hindered voluntary health insurance enrolment in Kenya. Our findings highlight the importance of fostering and leveraging existing social solidarity to move away from flat rate contributions to allow for fairer risk and income cross-subsidization. Finally, governments should invest in robust strategies to effectively identify subsidy beneficiaries.

Epistemic solidarity in medicine and healthcare

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

Solidarity and collectivism in the context of COVID-19

The coronavirus pandemic has impacted health care, economies and societies in ways that are still being measured across the world. To control the spread of the virus, governments continue to appeal to citizens to alter their behaviours and act in the interests of the collective public good so as to protect the vulnerable. Demonstrations of collective solidarity are being consistently sought to control the spread of the virus. Catchphrases, soundbites and hashtags such as 'we're all in this together', 'stronger together' and other messages of unity are employed, invoking the sense of a collective struggle. However, this approach is fundamentally challenged as collectivist attitudes run contrary to the individualism of neoliberal ideology, to which citizens have been subjected. This paper argues that attempting to employ the concept of solidarity is inherently challenged by the deep impact of neoliberalism in health policies and draws on the work of Durkheim to examine the concept in a context in which health care has become established as an individual responsibility. The paper will argue that a dominant private-responsibility model and an underfunded public system have eroded solidarity weakening its effectiveness in generating concerns for the collective.

Challenges to biobanking in LMICs during COVID-19: time to reconceptualise research ethics guidance for pandemics and public health emergencies?

Biobanking can promote valuable health research that may lead to significant societal benefits. However, collecting, storing and sharing human samples and data for research purposes present numerous ethical challenges. These challenges are exacerbated when the biobanking efforts aim to facilitate research on public health emergencies and include the sharing of samples and data between low/middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). In this article, we explore ethical challenges for COVID-19 biobanking, offering examples from two past infectious disease outbreaks in LMICs where biobanking activities contributed to the perpetuation of global inequities. We focus on how the ethical imperative to promote the common good during public health emergencies can conflict with protecting the interests of biobank participants. We discuss how conducting biobank research under a waiver of informed consent during public health emergencies is ethically permissible, provided guidance is in place to prevent biopiracy and exploitation of vulnerable communities. We also highlight the need for biobank collaborations between LMICs and HICs to promote capacity building and benefit sharing. Finally, we offer guidance to promote the ethical oversight of biobanks and biobank research during the COVID-19 pandemic or other future public health emergencies.

Precision medicine and the fragmentation of solidarity (and justice)

Solidarity is a fundamental social value in many European countries, though its precise practical and theoretical meaning is disputed. In a health care context, I agree with European writers who take solidarity normatively to mean roughly equal access to effective health care for all. That is, solidarity includes a sense of justice. Given that, I will argue that precision medicine represents a potential weakening of solidarity, albeit not a unique weakening. Precision medicine includes 150 targeted cancer therapies (mostly for metastatic cancer), all of which are extraordinarily expensive. Our critical question: Must a commitment to solidarity as defined mean that all these targeted cancer therapies should be guaranteed to all within each country in the European Union, no matter the cost, no matter the degree of effectiveness? Such a commitment would imply that cancer was ethically special, rightfully commandeering unlimited resources. That in itself would undermine solidarity. I offer multiple examples of how current and future dissemination of these targeted cancer drugs threaten a commitment to solidarity. An alternative is to fund more cancer prevention efforts. However, that too proves a threat to solidarity. Solidarity, with or without a sense of justice, is too abstract a notion to address these challenges. Further, we need to accept that we can only hope to achieve "rough justice" and "supple solidarity." The precise practical meaning of these notions needs to be worked out through a fair and inclusive process of rational democratic deliberation, which is the real and practical foundation of just solidarity.

COVID-19 Vaccination Passports: Are They a Threat to Equality?

In several countries, governments have implemented so-called 'COVID passport' schemes, which restrict access to venues such as bars or sports events to those who are vaccinated against COVID-19 and/or exempt vaccinated individuals from public health measures such as curfews or quarantine requirements. These schemes have been the subject of a heated debate. Concerns about inequality have played an important role in the opposition to such schemes. This article highlights that determining how COVID passports affect equality requires a much more nuanced analysis than is typically assumed. I identify a range of broadly egalitarian considerations that could be affected by the introduction of COVID passport schemes. While these schemes could undermine certain aspects of equality, I argue that they could also be used to promote equality. The magnitude and severity of these different effects, both promoting and undermining equality, depend on how precisely these schemes are framed and the local context in which they are implemented.

Redefining nursing solidarity

The idea of solidarity is in vogue, especially since the eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the term "solidarity," as used in nursing, is imprecise and vague, lacking clear definition and connoting a variety of general meanings. Based on the original meaning of "solidarity" in ancient Roman law, this article captures the archetypical idea of solidarity from a historical and interdisciplinary perspective. This archetypical or primary meaning comes before the development of any other meanings of the word, and it is therefore authentic and genuine because it does not derive from something else. After establishing the archetypical meaning of solidarity, the article translates this meaning into the area of nursing and demonstrates a deep connectivity between healthcare and solidarity. The second part of the article offers and develops a new definition of nursing solidarity as the responsibility for the healthcare of a person (unit) shared as a whole (entirety) by that person and a nurse or a nursing team (plurality). This new definition has some implications for nursing practice and education, since the definition emphasizes the idea that solidarity helps to (a) foster respect and avoid discrimination, (b) promote cohesion in health communities, (c) increase individual responsibility and a spirit of service, (d) stimulate motivation, (e) improve communication, (f) create an engaging workplace, and (g) develop leadership.

Attitudes and Perceptions of Health Protection Measures Against the Spread of COVID-19 in Italy and Poland

Background: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (April to May 2020), 6,169 Polish and 939 Italian residents were surveyed with an online questionnaire investigating socio-demographic information and personality traits (first section) as well as attitudes, position, and efficacy perceptions on the impact of lockdown (second section) and various health protection measures enforced (third section). Methods: The "health protection attitude score" (HPAS), an endpoint obtained by pooling up the answers to questions of the third section of the survey tool, was investigated by multiple linear regression models, reporting regression coefficients (RC) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Concerns for business and health due to COVID-19 were associated with a positive attitude toward risk reduction rules. By contrast, male sex, concerns about the reliability of information available online on COVID-19 and its prevention, along with the feeling of not being enough informed on the transmissibility/prevention of SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a negative attitude toward risk mitigation measures. Discussion: A recent literature review identified two social patterns with different features in relation to their attitude toward health protection rules against the spread of COVID-19. Factors positively associated with adherence to public health guidelines were perceived threat of COVID-19, trust in government, female sex, and increasing age. Factors associated with decreased compliance were instead underestimation of the COVID-19 risk, limited knowledge of the pandemic, belief in conspiracy theories, and political conservativism. Very few studies have tested interventions to change attitudes or behaviors. Conclusion: To improve attitude and compliance toward risk reduction norms, a key intervention is fostering education and knowledge on COVID-19 health risk and prevention among the general population. However, information on COVID-19 epidemiology might be user-generated and contaminated by social media, which contributed to creating an infodemic around the disease. To prevent the negative impact of social media and to increase adherence to health protection, stronger content control by providers of social platforms is recommended.

Challenges and Ethical Issues Related to COVID-19 Contact Tracing Teams in Turkey

Objective

The purpose of this study was to determine and evaluate the challenges and ethical issues faced by COVID-19 filiation (contact tracing) teams and report the experiences of team members.

Methods

This is a descriptive study conducted to evaluate the performance of contact tracing field teams established by the Ministry of Health to identify, refer, and follow-up persons who tested positive for COVID-19 and their contacts. Reports were collected from various Turkish medical associations, the Turkish Ministry of Health, online news sources, and online interviews published between 11 March 2020 and 18 April 2021.

Results

A total of 32 reports published by the Turkish Ministry of Health, various medical associations in Turkey, and the Turkish Academy of Science, together with a number of online media reports on issues involving contact tracing teams, were reviewed. While the activities of the teams were overall found to be of benefit during the pandemic, numerous factors negatively impacting their success were identified. These factors included insufficient social support, wherein the fundamental bioethical values of solidarity, responsibility, respect, and trust were not adopted on a societal level, as well as issues involving the teams themselves, such as lack of time to properly conduct their work, inadequate communication skills and/or personal issues.

Conclusion

Studies conducted by the contact tracing teams were of vital importance in managing the pandemic. The teams were especially effective in reaching both educated and uneducated segments of the society, in diagnosing cases, and in informing the public regarding the pandemic. Evaluating the experiences of the contact tracing teams deployed in Turkey is of vital importance to ensure better preparation for any future pandemics.

Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare

As the rising costs of lifestyle-related diseases place increasing strain on public healthcare systems, the individual's role in disease may be proposed as a healthcare rationing criterion. Literature thus far has largely focused on retrospective responsibility in healthcare. The concept of prospective responsibility, in the form of a lifestyle contract, warrants further investigation. The responsibilisation in healthcare debate also needs to take into account innovative developments in mobile health technology, such as wearable biometric devices and mobile apps, which may change how we hold others accountable for their lifestyles. Little is known about public attitudes towards lifestyle contracts and the use of mobile health technology to hold people responsible in the context of healthcare. This paper has two components. Firstly, it details empirical findings from a survey of 81 members of the United Kingdom general public on public attitudes towards individual responsibility and rationing healthcare, prospective and retrospective responsibility, and the acceptability of lifestyle contracts in the context of mobile health technology. Secondly, we draw on the empirical findings and propose a model of prospective intention-based lifestyle contracts, which is both more aligned with public intuitions and less ethically objectionable than more traditional, retrospective models of responsibility in healthcare.

How medical dominance and interprofessional conflicts undermine patient-centred care in hospitals: historical analysis and multiple embedded case study in Morocco

Background

In Morocco’s health systems, reforms were accompanied by increased tensions among doctors, nurses and health managers, poor interprofessional collaboration and counterproductive power struggles. However, little attention has focused on the processes underlying these interprofessional conflicts and their nature. Here, we explored the perspective of health workers and managers in four Moroccan hospitals.

Methods

We adopted a multiple embedded case study design and conducted 68 interviews, 8 focus group discussions and 11 group discussions with doctors, nurses, administrators and health managers at different organisational levels. We analysed what health workers (doctors and nurses) and health managers said about their sources of power, perceived roles and relationships with other healthcare professions. For our iterative qualitative data analysis, we coded all data sources using NVivo V.11 software and carried out thematic analysis using the concepts of ‘negotiated order’ and the four worldviews. For context, we used historical analysis to trace the development of medical and nursing professions during the colonial and postcolonial eras in Morocco.

Results

Our findings highlight professional hierarchies that counterbalance the power of formal hierarchies. Interprofessional interactions in Moroccan hospitals are marked by conflicts, power struggles and daily negotiated orders that may not serve the best interests of patients. The results confirm the dominance of medical specialists occupying the top of the professional hierarchy pyramid, as perceived at all levels in the four hospitals. In addition, health managers, lacking institutional backing, resources and decision spaces, often must rely on soft power when dealing with health workers to ensure smooth collaboration in care.

Conclusion

The stratified order of care professions creates hierarchical professional boundaries in Moroccan hospitals, leading to partitioning of care and poor interprofessional collaboration. More attention should be placed on empowering health workers in delivering quality care by ensuring smooth interprofessional collaboration.

Healthcare, Responsibility and Golden Opportunities

When it comes to determining how healthcare resources should be allocated, there are many factors that could-and perhaps should-be taken into account. One such factor is a patient's responsibility for his or her illness, or for the behavior that caused it. Policies that take responsibility for the unhealthy lifestyle or its outcomes into account-responsibility-sensitive policies-have faced a series of criticisms. One holds that agents often fail to meet either the control or epistemic conditions on responsibility with regard to their unhealthy lifestyles or their outcomes. Another holds that even if patients sometimes are responsible for these items, we cannot know whether a particular patient is responsible for them. In this article, we propose a type of responsibility-sensitive policy that may be able to surmount these difficulties. Under this type of policy, patients are empowered to change to a healthier lifestyle by being given what we call a 'Golden Opportunity' to change. Such a policy would not only avoid concerns about patients' fulfilment of conditions on responsibility for their lifestyles, it would also allow healthcare authorities to be justified in believing that a patient who does not change her lifestyle is responsible for the unhealthy lifestyle. We conclude with a discussion of avenues for further work, and place this policy in the broader context of the debate on responsibility for health.

Mental wellbeing in a pandemic: the role of solidarity and care

COVID-19 deeply affects many spheres of life. Lockdown measures implemented worldwide have accentuated mental wellbeing changes in the population from the perspectives of space and social relations. These changes leave lasting imprints on individuals and communities. This article draws upon solidarity and care ethics in exploring their role in rebuilding mental wellbeing in the light of constraints arising from lockdown. The diversity of responses to physical and social isolation during the pandemic illuminates the distinctly relational nature of human beings, offering the opportunity for care and solidarity to respond to mental wellbeing challenges in an inclusive and context-sensitive way.

Ethics of Vaccination in Childhood-A Framework Based on the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics

Although vaccination is recognised as the top public health achievement of the twentieth century, unequivocal consensus about its beneficence does not exist among the general population. In countries with well-established immunisation programmes, vaccines are “victims of their own success”, because low incidences of diseases now prevented with vaccines diminished the experience of their historical burdens. Increasing number of vaccine-hesitant people in recent years threatens, or even effectively disables, herd immunity levels of the population and results in outbreaks of previously already controlled diseases. We aimed to apply a framework for ethical analysis of vaccination in childhood based on the four principles of biomedical ethics (respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice) to provide a comprehensive and applicable model on how to address the ethical aspects of vaccination at both individual and societal levels. We suggest finding an “ethical equilibrium”, which means that the degree of respect for parents’ autonomy is not constant, but variable; it shall depend on the level of established herd immunity and it is specific for every society. When the moral obligation of individuals to contribute to herd immunity is not fulfilled, mandatory vaccination policies are ethically justified, because states bear responsibility to protect herd immunity as a common good.

COVID-19 Capitalism: The Profit Motive versus Public Health

Market incentives in capitalist economies and public health requirements are contradictory. In the COVID-19 pandemic, market-rewarded self-interested behavior has been exposed as a source of mortality and morbidity. Profit-motivated behaviors can keep people from accessing necessities for health thereby harming individuals and possibly damaging population health. The profit motive can also undermine healthcare system capacity by maldistributing goods that are inputs to healthcare. Furthermore, because profit-seeking is economically rational in capitalism, capitalist imperatives may be incompatible with public health. The ways markets misallocate resources provide a rationale for state responsibility for health, which is a public good.

COVID-19 and Health-Related Authority Allocation Puzzles

COVID-19-related controversies concerning the allocation of scarce resources, travel restrictions, and physical distancing norms each raise a foundational question: How should authority, and thus responsibility, over healthcare and public health law and policy be allocated? Each controversy raises principles that support claims by traditional wielders of authority in “federal” countries, like federal and state governments, and less traditional entities, like cities and sub-state nations. No existing principle divides “healthcare and public law and policy” into units that can be allocated in intuitively compelling ways. This leads to puzzles concerning (a) the principles for justifiably allocating “powers” in these domains and (b) whether and how they change during “emergencies.” This work motivates the puzzles, explains why resolving them should be part of long-term responses to COVID-19, and outlines some initial COVID-19-related findings that shed light on justifiable authority allocation, emergencies, emergency powers, and the relationships between them.

An Ethical Analysis of the 'Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna (PM-JAY)' Scheme using the Stakeholder Approach to Universal Health Care in India

This paper analyses the ethical considerations using the stakeholder theory on two specific domains of the newly implemented 'Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna (PM-JAY)' scheme by the Government of India. The paper recommends a solidarity-based approach over an entitlement based one that focuses on out-of-pocket expenses for the most vulnerable and a stewardship role from the private sector to ensure equity, accountability, and sustainability of PM-JAY scheme.