Snakes and ladders: state interventions and the place of liberty in public health policy

Ladders and stairs: how the intervention ladder focuses blame on individuals and obscures systemic failings and interventions

Introduced in 2007 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the intervention ladder has become an influential tool in bioethics and public health policy for weighing the justification for interventions and for weighing considerations of intrusiveness and proportionality. However, while such considerations are critical, in its focus on these factors, the ladder overemphasises the role of personal responsibility and the importance of individual behaviour change in public health interventions. Through a study of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine mandates among healthcare workers, this paper investigates how the ladder obscures systemic factors such as the social determinants of health. In overlooking these factors, potentially effective interventions are left off the table and the intervention ladder serves to divert attention away from key issues in public health. This paper, therefore, proposes a replacement for the intervention ladder-the intervention stairway. By broadening the intervention ladder to include systemic factors, the stairway ensures relevant interventions are not neglected merely due to the framing of the issue. Moreover, it more accurately captures factors influencing individual health as well as allocations of responsibility for improving these factors.

Assessing support for mental health policies among policy influencers and the general public in Alberta and Manitoba, Canada

BACKGROUND

There is a need to improve mental health policy in Canada to address the growing population burden of mental illness. Understanding support for policy options is critical for advocacy efforts to improve mental health policy. Our purpose was to describe support for population-level healthy public policies to improve mental health among policy influencers and the general public in Alberta and Manitoba; and, identify associations between levels of support and sociodemographic variables and relative to the Nuffield Bioethics Intervention Ladder framework.

METHODS

We used data from the 2019 Chronic Disease Prevention Survey, which recruited a representative sample of the general public in Alberta (n = 1792) and Manitoba (n = 1909) and policy influencers in each province (Alberta n = 291, Manitoba n = 129). Level of support was described for 16 policy options using a Likert-style scale for mental health policy options by province, sample type, and sociodemographic variables using ordinal regression modelling. Policy options were coded using the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Intervention Ladder to classify support for policy options by level of intrusiveness.

RESULTS

Policy options were categorized as 'Provide Information' and 'Enable Choice' according to the Nuffield Intervention Ladder. There was high support for all policy options, and few differences between samples or provinces. Strong support was more common among women and among those who were more politically left (versus center). Immigrants were more likely to strongly support most of the policies. Those who were politically right leaning (versus center) were less likely to support any of the mental health policies. Mental health status, education, and Indigenous identity were also associated with support for some policy options.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong support for mental health policy in Western Canada. Results demonstrate a gap between support and implementation of mental health policy and provide evidence for advocates and policy makers looking to improve the policy landscape in Canada.

The Awareness of the Role of Commercial Determinants of Health and the Readiness to Accept Restrictions on Unhealthy Food Advertising in Polish Society

The negative consequences of commercial determinants of health (CDoH) have become a major challenge for public health systems, especially in terms of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). CDoH are defined as profit-driven factors that influence health. In this study, we assessed the awareness of CDoH and the attitudes toward potential restrictions on advertising, as well as fiscal interventions targeting food products with harmful effects on health in Polish society. Our analysis is based on data from a computer-based web interviewing (CAWI) survey performed in May 2022 among 2008 adult internet users from Poland. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed for variables derived from three items exploring the respondents' understanding of the relationship between CDoH and NCDs, as well as three items asking about their acceptance of a prohibition of advertising unhealthy products during sports events, a general ban on unhealthy food advertising, and their attitudes toward sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Food (FL) and e-health literacy (eHL) levels were consistently positive predictors of both awareness of CDoH and acceptance of the proposed actions. Both higher FL and eHL were significantly associated with the opinion that advertising unhealthy food is associated with the prevalence of NCDs (OR, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.02-1.05, and 1.04, 1.02-1.06, respectively). Health literacy was less frequently a significant predictor of the dependent variables. Among sociodemographic factors, a respondent's level of education and age showed a significant relationship with their awareness and acceptance of countermeasures against CDoH. Respondents with a university master's level of education were more likely to agree with the statement on the relationship between big industry profits and harm to society's health (OR, 95% CI: 1.96, 1.42-2.69) and to support a ban on advertising unhealthy food similar to that for tobacco products (OR, 95% CI: 1.66, 1.21-2.27). Respondents suffering from chronic diseases were also consistently more likely to show a greater understanding of the harmful impact of CDoH and support proposed restrictions. For example, they were more likely to agree with restrictions on advertising harmful products during sports events (OR, 95% CI: 1.23, 1.02-1.50) and the introduction of a sugar tax (OR, 95% CI: 1.26, 1.03-1.54). Our study revealed that more than 50% of the Polish population is conscious of the problem of the harmful effects of big industries producing and selling processed food, sugar-sweetened beverages, and alcoholic beverages. Interestingly, slightly more than half of the respondents supported the introduction of restrictions on advertising such products. Still, only approximately 30% of them accepted a sugar tax to counter the obesity epidemic. The results of our study indicate that Polish society is open to the introduction of regulations aimed at limiting the impact of commercial determinants of health. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to assess the awareness of CDoH and the acceptance of restrictions to limit their impact.

The Right to Protest During a Pandemic: Using Public Health Ethics to Bridge the Divide Between Public Health Goals and Human Rights

Public protest continued to represent a prominent form of social activism in democratic societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Australia, a lack of specific legislation articulating protest rights has meant that, in the context of pandemic restrictions, such events have been treated as illegal mass gatherings. Numerous large protests in major cities have, indeed, stirred significant public debate regarding rights of assembly during COVID-19 outbreaks. The ethics of infringing on protest rights continues to be controversial, with opinion divided as to whether public health goals or human rights should take precedence. This paper applies public health ethical theory to an in-depth analysis of arguments on both sides of the debate. Using the Nuffield Council on Bioethics framework as a backdrop, proportionality and necessity of restrictions are understood as key concepts that are common to both public health and human rights perspectives. The analysis presented here finds a middle-ground between the prevailing arguments on opposing sides and is further able to rationalize the use of protest itself as an important element of a mature public health ethics response to restrictive policy. Thus, this paper aims to influence public health policy and legislation regarding protest rights during public health emergencies.

Justifying the More Restrictive Alternative: Ethical Justifications for One Health AMR Policies Rely on Empirical Evidence

Global consumption of antibiotics has accelerated the evolution of bacterial antimicrobial resistance. Yet, the risks from increasing bacterial antimicrobial resistance are not restricted to human populations: transmission of antimicrobial resistant bacteria occurs between humans, farms, the environment and other reservoirs. Policies that take a 'One Health' approach deal with this cross-reservoir spread, but are often more restrictive concerning human actions than policies that focus on a single reservoir. As such, the burden of justification lies with these more restrictive policies. We argue that an ethical justification for preferring One Health policies over less restrictive alternatives relies on empirical evidence as well as theory. The ethical justification for these policies is based on two arguments: (i) comparatively greater effectiveness, and (ii) comparatively better tracking of moral responsibility. Yet the empirical assumptions on which these claims rest are limited by existing empirical knowledge. Using livestock farming as an example, we suggest that scientific research into characterising antimicrobial resistance and linking practices to outcomes ought to be guided (at least in part) by the imperative to supply the context-specific data needed to ethically justify preferring a One Health policy over less restrictive alternatives.

Public Health Virtue Ethics

This paper proposes that public health is the sort of institution that has a role in producing structures of virtue in society. This proposal builds upon work that describes how virtues are structured by the practices of institutions, at the collective or whole-of-society level. This work seeks to fill a gap in public health ethics when it comes to virtues. Mainstay moral theories tend to incorporate some role for virtues, but within public health ethics this role has not been fully articulated. Two recent papers have proposed ways in which the virtues might be incorporated: working from a structural account, Rozier suggests that public health could work to instil virtues, like temperance, in the public in order to achieve its health-related goals; Nihlén Fahlquist suggests that compassion is among three virtues that practitioners of public health should cultivate in order to do their work well. In the end, both accounts recommend incorporating virtues at the level of individuals, among the public and among practitioners. I propose a third kind of role for virtue in public health that focuses on structures. Public health activities take place at the population level, and a public health virtue ethics must also be suitably population-focussed.

Screening for multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: what is effective and justifiable?

Effectiveness is a key criterion in assessing the justification of antibiotic resistance interventions. Depending on an intervention’s effectiveness, burdens and costs will be more or less justified, which is especially important for large scale population-level interventions with high running costs and pronounced risks to individuals in terms of wellbeing, integrity and autonomy. In this paper, we assess the case of routine hospital screening for multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDRGN) from this perspective. Utilizing a comparison to screening programs for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) we argue that current screening programmes for MDRGN in low endemic settings should be reconsidered, as its effectiveness is in doubt, while general downsides to screening programs remain. To accomplish justifiable antibiotic stewardship, MDRGN screening should not be viewed as a separate measure, but rather as part of a comprehensive approach. The program should be redesigned to focus on those at risk of developing symptomatic infections with MDRGN rather than merely detecting those colonised.

The two most important questions for ethical public health

Public health ethics is a distinct and established field, and it is important that its approaches and rationales are understood widely in the public health community. Such understanding includes the capacity to identify and combine principled and practical concerns in public health. In this paper, we present a background to the ideas that motivate public health ethics as a field of research and practice, and rationalize these through a critical ethico-legal approach to analysis. Two essential points of inquiry are identified and formulated to allow philosophical and practical agendas regarding public health to be combined. These come through asking the theoretical question 'what makes health public?'; and the practical question 'how do we make health public?'. We argue that these two questions require to be addressed if we are to achieve a robust and rigorous, ethical public health.

Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health

Community water fluoridation (CWF), a long-established public health intervention, has been studied for scientific evidence from both of yea and nay standpoints. To justify CWF with scientific evidence inevitably leads to ethical justification, which raises the question of whether oral health is of individual concern or social responsibility. As dental caries is a public health problem, public health ethics should be applied to the topic instead of generic clinical ethics. From both pro- and anti-fluoridationists’ perspectives, CWF is a public health policy requiring a significant level of intervention. Thus, there needs to take further considerations for justifying CWF beyond the simple aspect of utility. For further ethical considerations on CWF, three caveats were suggested: procedural justice, social contexts, and maintenance of trust. The process to justify CWF should also be justified, not simply by majority rule but participatory decision-making with transparency and pluralistic democracy. Social contexts are to be part of the process of resolving conflicting values in public health interventions. Public trust in the dental profession and the oral healthcare system should be maintained over the considerations. This article suggests accountability for reasonableness as a framework to consider infringement by CWF for public justification of its implementation.

Are young adults' discussions of public health nutrition policies associated with common food industry discourses? A qualitative pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Unhealthy diets are a key risk factor for chronic disease, with young adults (18-30 years old) in high-income countries like Australia and the UK particularly at risk. Improved public health nutrition policies can help address unhealthy diets in the population, but many of the more regulatory policies are opposed by food industry groups. This research explores how young adults in Australia and the UK discuss a range of topical public health nutrition policies and analyses whether and how their views may be associated with food industry discourses.

METHODS

Eight focus groups were held in Sydney, Australia, and Glasgow, UK, with a total of thirty young adults participating. A deliberative-style method was used in the focus groups to generate discussion about six public health nutrition policies, such as taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages and restrictions on advertising of less-healthy foods. Discourse analysis was used to examine participants' discussions.

RESULTS

Twenty discourse codes were developed iteratively from the focus group data. These were thematically linked with nine food industry discourses found in the peer-reviewed literature, including industry self-regulation, personal responsibility, corporate social responsibility and challenging nutrition science.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate there is an association between common food industry discourses and some young adults' views about public health nutrition policies. Implications for public health: Identifying, engaging with and responding to common industry discourses is a priority in order to build greater public support and acceptability of policies that will improve diet and prevent chronic disease.

Vaccination Policies: Between Best and Basic Interests of the Child, between Precaution and Proportionality

How should liberal-democratic governments deal with emerging vaccination hesitancy when that leads to the resurgence of diseases that for decades were under control? This article argues that vaccination policies should be justified in terms of a proper weighing of the rights of children to be protected against vaccine-preventable diseases and the rights of parents to raise their children in ways that they see fit. The argument starts from the concept of the ‘best interests of the child involved’. The concept is elaborated for this context into the dual regime structure in which parents have fiduciary authority over what they consider to be best for their child, and the state has fiduciary authority over a child’s basic interests. This argument leads to conditional mandatory vaccination programs that should be informed by a correct balancing of the two legal principles of proportionality and precaution. This results in contextual childhood vaccination policies of upscaling interference: a three-tiered approach of increased intrusion, from voluntary program when possible and mandatory or even compulsory programs when necessary to protect the child’s basic interests.

The Ethics of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Improve Public Health

The World Health Organization highlights fiscal policies as priority interventions for the promotion of healthy eating in its Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases. The taxation of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) in particular is noted to be an effective measure, and SSBs taxes have already been implemented in several countries worldwide. However, although the evidence base suggests that this will be effective in helping to combat rising obesity rates, opponents of SSBs taxation argue that it is illiberal and paternalistic, and therefore should be avoided. Bioethical analysis may play an essential role in clarifying whether policymakers should adopt SSBs taxes as part of wider obesity strategy. In this article we argue that no single ethical theory can account for the complexities inherent in obesity prevention strategy, especially the liberal theories relied upon by opponents of SSBs taxation. We contend that a pluralist approach to the ethics of SSBs taxation must be adopted as the only suitable way of accounting for the multiple overlapping, and sometimes, conflicting factors that are relevant to determining the moral acceptability of such an intervention.

Ethics, effectiveness and population health information interventions: a Canadian analysis

Population health information interventions (PHIIs) use information in efforts to promote health. PHIIs may push information to a target audience (communication), pull information from the public (surveillance), or combine both in a bidirectional intervention. Although PHIIs have often been framed as non-invasive and ethically innocuous, in reality they may be intrusive into people's lives, affecting not only their health but their senses of security, respect, and self-determination. Ethical acceptability of PHIIs may have impacts on intervention effectiveness, potentially giving rise to unintended consequences. This article examines push, pull, and bidirectional PHIIs using empirical data from an ethnographic study of young mothers in Greater Vancouver, Canada. Data were collected from October 2013 to December 2014 via naturalistic observation and individual interviews with 37 young mothers ages 16-22. Transcribed interviews and field notes were analyzed using inductive qualitative thematic analysis. Both push and pull interventions were experienced as non-neutral by the target population, and implementation factors on a structural and individual scale affected intervention ethics and effectiveness. Based on our findings, we suggest that careful ethical consideration be applied to use of PHIIs as health promotion tools. Advancing the 'ethics of PHIIs' will benefit from empirical data that is informed by information and computer science theory and methods. Information technologies, digital health promotion services, and integrated surveillance programs reflect important areas for investigation in terms of their effects and ethics. Health promotion researchers, practitioners, and ethicists should explore these across contexts and populations.

[Vaccination ethics-a sketch of moral challenges and ethical criteria]

Vaccination recommendations of public health institutes and personal decisions to get vaccinated cannot be grounded on scientific evidence alone. If and under what conditions vaccinations should take place can only be decided for concrete contexts and accompanied by justification processes applying ethical norms and values.This paper offers a normative framework for vaccination ethics. It reflects the principles and argumentation of individual and social ethics and discusses public health ethical tools available in the literature. The specific challenges of autonomous and health literate behavior from a justice perspective are examined. Also discussed is the position of the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO).