1
|
Ford A, De Togni G, Erikainen S, Filipe AM, Pickersgill M, Sturdy S, Swallow J, Young I. How and why to use 'vulnerability': an interdisciplinary analysis of disease risk, indeterminacy and normality. MEDICAL HUMANITIES 2024; 50:125-134. [PMID: 37696602 DOI: 10.1136/medhum-2023-012683] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/17/2023] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Abstract
In recent years, 'vulnerability' has been getting more traction in theoretical, professional and popular spaces as an alternative or complement to the concept of risk. As a group of science and technology studies scholars with different disciplinary orientations yet a shared concern with biomedicine, self and society, we investigate how vulnerability has become a salient and even dominant idiom for discussing disease and disease risk. We argue that this is at least partly due to an inherent indeterminacy in what 'vulnerability' means and does, both within and across different discourses. Through a review of feminist and disability theory, and a discussion of how vulnerability and disease both get recruited into a binary conceptualisation of normal versus abnormal, we argue that vulnerability's indeterminacy is, in fact, its strength, and that it should be used differently than risk. Using COVID-19 management in the UK as an illustration of the current ambivalence and ambiguity in how vulnerability versus risk is applied, we suggest that instead of being codified or quantified, as it has started to be in some biomedical and public health applications, vulnerability and its remedies should be determined in conjunction with affected communities and in ways that are polyvalent, flexible and nuanced. The concept of vulnerability encapsulates an important precept: we must recognise inequality as undesirable while not attempting to 'solve' it in deterministic ways. Rather than becoming fixed into labels, unidirectional causalities or top-down universalising metrics, vulnerability could be used to insist on relational, context-specific understandings of disease and disease risk-in line with contemporary social justice movements that require non-hierarchical and non-universal approaches to problems and solutions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Ford
- Centre for Biomedicine Self and Society, The University of Edinburgh Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Giulia De Togni
- Centre for Biomedicine Self and Society, The University of Edinburgh Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Sonja Erikainen
- Department of Sociology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Martyn Pickersgill
- Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Steve Sturdy
- School of Social and Political Science, The University of Edinburgh College of Humanities and Social Science, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Julia Swallow
- Centre for Biomedicine Self and Society, The University of Edinburgh Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Ingrid Young
- Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Milne R, Patch C. Ethical Challenges Associated with Pathogen and Host Genetics in Infectious Disease. New Bioeth 2023; 29:24-36. [PMID: 35972296 DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2022.2109697] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
The Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the potential of genomic technologies for the detection and surveillance of infectious diseases. Pathogen genomics is likely to play a major role in the future of research and clinical implementation of genomic technologies. However, unlike human genetics, the specific ethical and social challenges associated with the implementation of infectious disease genomics has received comparatively little attention. In this paper, we contribute to this literature, focusing on the potential consequences for individuals and communities of the use of these technologies. We concentrate on areas of challenges related to privacy, stigma, discrimination and the return of results in the cases of the surveillance of known pathogens, metagenomics and host genomics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Milne
- Engagement and Society, Wellcome Connecting Science, Hinxton, UK.,Kavli Centre for Ethics, Science and the Public, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Christine Patch
- Engagement and Society, Wellcome Connecting Science, Hinxton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Flook M, Jackson C, Vasileiou E, Simpson CR, Muckian MD, Agrawal U, McCowan C, Jia Y, Murray JLK, Ritchie LD, Robertson C, Stock SJ, Wang X, Woolhouse MEJ, Sheikh A, Stagg HR. Informing the public health response to COVID-19: a systematic review of risk factors for disease, severity, and mortality. BMC Infect Dis 2021; 21:342. [PMID: 33845766 PMCID: PMC8040367 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-05992-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Accepted: 03/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has challenged public health agencies globally. In order to effectively target government responses, it is critical to identify the individuals most at risk of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), developing severe clinical signs, and mortality. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to present the current status of scientific knowledge in these areas and describe the need for unified global approaches, moving forwards, as well as lessons learnt for future pandemics. METHODS Medline, Embase and Global Health were searched to the end of April 2020, as well as the Web of Science. Search terms were specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. Comparative studies of risk factors from any setting, population group and in any language were included. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened by two reviewers and extracted in duplicate into a standardised form. Data were extracted on risk factors for COVID-19 disease, severe disease, or death and were narratively and descriptively synthesised. RESULTS One thousand two hundred and thirty-eight papers were identified post-deduplication. Thirty-three met our inclusion criteria, of which 26 were from China. Six assessed the risk of contracting the disease, 20 the risk of having severe disease and ten the risk of dying. Age, gender and co-morbidities were commonly assessed as risk factors. The weight of evidence showed increasing age to be associated with severe disease and mortality, and general comorbidities with mortality. Only seven studies presented multivariable analyses and power was generally limited. A wide range of definitions were used for disease severity. CONCLUSIONS The volume of literature generated in the short time since the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 has been considerable. Many studies have sought to document the risk factors for COVID-19 disease, disease severity and mortality; age was the only risk factor based on robust studies and with a consistent body of evidence. Mechanistic studies are required to understand why age is such an important risk factor. At the start of pandemics, large, standardised, studies that use multivariable analyses are urgently needed so that the populations most at risk can be rapidly protected. REGISTRATION This review was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020177714 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Flook
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK
| | - C Jackson
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - E Vasileiou
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK
| | - C R Simpson
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK
- School of Health, Wellington Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - M D Muckian
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK
| | - U Agrawal
- School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, UK
| | - C McCowan
- School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, UK
| | - Y Jia
- Freelance consultant, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - J L K Murray
- National Health Service Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK
- Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK
| | - L D Ritchie
- School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - C Robertson
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - S J Stock
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK
| | - X Wang
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK
| | - M E J Woolhouse
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - A Sheikh
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK
| | - H R Stagg
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 30 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK.
| |
Collapse
|