Chronic disease as risk multiplier for disadvantage

Epistemic Injustice and Nonmaleficence

Epistemic injustice has undergone a steady growth in the medical ethics literature throughout the last decade as many ethicists have found it to be a powerful tool for describing and assessing morally problematic situations in healthcare. However, surprisingly scarce attention has been devoted to how epistemic injustice relates to physicians' professional duties on a conceptual level. I argue that epistemic injustice, specifically testimonial, collides with physicians' duty of nonmaleficence and should thus be actively fought against in healthcare encounters on the ground of professional conduct. I do so by fleshing out how Fricker's conception of testimonial injustice conflicts with the duty of nonmaleficence as defined in Beauchamp and Childress on theoretical grounds. From there, I argue that testimonial injustice produces two distinct types of harm, epistemic and non-epistemic. Epistemic harms are harms inflicted by the physician to the patient qua knower, whereas non-epistemic harms are inflicted to the patient qua patient. This latter case holds serious clinical implications and represent a failure of the process of due care on the part of the physician. I illustrate this through examples taken from the literature on fibromyalgia syndrome and show how testimonial injustice causes wrongful harm to patients, making it maleficent practice. Finally, I conclude on why nonmaleficence as a principle will not be normatively enough to fully address the problem of epistemic injustice in healthcare but nevertheless may serve as a good starting point in attempting to do so.

Understanding the problem of long-term treatment adherence: a phenomenological framework

In light of the large burden of chronic disease and the low rates of long-term treatment adherence contributing to high rates of morbidity and mortality worldwide, this paper contributes to better understanding the particular kind of challenge that living with chronic illness and adhering to long-term treatment can imply. Both literature on the concept of chronic disease and the experience of illness suggest going outside specific diagnostic categories to better understand the problem of adherence. After introducing the distinction of a thin understanding of chronicity-merely as long duration-and a thick one-chronicity in a phenomenological sense, this paper analyses academic literature on the experience of illness and specifies it to the case of chronic diseases, introducing an original conceptual framework describing some main challenges arising from the experience of chronic disease. The framework is organised in three dimensions: failing to recover as a failure to belong, being at a loss and breaking-up with oneself. This work suggests a particular subjective state in which struggling to follow long-term treatment may seem understandable and reasonable, offering a phenomenological perspective that feeds into the ethical problems arising in chronic diseases, and shedding light on how to increase adherence without reproducing patterns of disadvantage.

Sustainable Development Goals relevant to kidney health: an update on progress

Globally, more than 5 million people die annually from lack of access to critical treatments for kidney disease — by 2040, chronic kidney disease is projected to be the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. Kidney diseases are particularly challenging to tackle because they are pathologically diverse and are often asymptomatic. As such, kidney disease is often diagnosed late, and the global burden of kidney disease continues to be underappreciated. When kidney disease is not detected and treated early, patient care requires specialized resources that drive up cost, place many people at risk of catastrophic health expenditure and pose high opportunity costs for health systems. Prevention of kidney disease is highly cost-effective but requires a multisectoral holistic approach. Each Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) has the potential to impact kidney disease risk or improve early diagnosis and treatment, and thus reduce the need for high-cost care. All countries have agreed to strive to achieve the SDGs, but progress is disjointed and uneven among and within countries. The six SDG Transformations framework can be used to examine SDGs with relevance to kidney health that require attention and reveal inter-linkages among the SDGs that should accelerate progress.

Working towards sustainable development is essential to tackle the rise in the global burden of non-communicable diseases, including kidney disease. Five years after the Sustainable Development Goal agenda was set, this Review examines the progress thus far, highlighting future challenges and opportunities, and explores the implications for kidney disease.

Each Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) has the potential to improve kidney health and prevent kidney disease by improving the general health and well-being of individuals and societies, and by protecting the environment.

Achievement of each SDG is interrelated to the achievement of multiple other SDGs; therefore, a multisectoral approach is required.

The global burden of kidney disease has been relatively underestimated because of a lack of data.

Structural violence and the social determinants of health have an important impact on kidney disease risk.

Kidney disease is the leading global cause of catastrophic health expenditure, in part because of the high costs of kidney replacement therapy.

Achievement of universal health coverage is the minimum requirement to ensure sustainable and affordable access to early detection and quality treatment of kidney disease and/or its risk factors, which should translate to a reduction in the burden of kidney failure in the future.

Why have Non-communicable Diseases been Left Behind?

Non-communicable diseases are no longer largely limited to high-income countries and the elderly. The burden of non-communicable diseases is rising across all country income categories, in part because these diseases have been relatively overlooked on the global health agenda. Historically, communicable diseases have been prioritized in many countries as they were perceived to constitute the greatest disease burden, especially among vulnerable and poor populations, and strategies for prevention and treatment, which had been successful in high-income settings, were considered feasible and often affordable in low-income settings. This prioritization has reduced the communicable diseases burden globally but has left non-communicable diseases largely neglected. A new approach is urgently needed to tackle non-communicable diseases. Based on an analysis of potential features which may have underlain the different approaches to non-communicable diseases and communicable diseases until now, including acuity of disease, potential for control or cure, cost, infectiousness, blaming of individuals and logistical barriers, little ethical or rational justification can be found to support continued neglect of non-communicable diseases. Justice demands access to quality and affordable care for all. An equitable approach to non-communicable diseases is therefore strongly mandated on medical, ethical, economic, and public health grounds. Funding must not however be diverted away from communicable diseases, which continue to require attention-but concomitantly, funding for non-communicable diseases must be increased. International and multi-sectoral action is required to accelerate progress towards true universal health coverage and towards achievement of all of the sustainable development goals, such that prevention and access to care for non-communicable disease can become a global reality.