1
|
Bradfield OM. Hearing Parents' Voices: Parental Refusal of Cochlear Implants and the Zone of Parental Discretion. JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 2022; 19:143-150. [PMID: 34918184 PMCID: PMC9007755 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-021-10154-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 10/14/2021] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
It has been forty years since the first multi-channel cochlear implant was used in Australia. While heralded in the hearing world as one of the greatest inventions in modern medicine, not everyone reflects on this achievement with enthusiasm. For many people in the Deaf community, they see the cochlear implant as a tool that reinforces a social construct that pathologizes deafness and removes Deaf identity. In this paper, I set out the main arguments for and against cochlear implantation. While I conclude that, on balance, cochlear implants improve the well-being and broaden the open futures of deaf children, this does not justify mandating implants in circumstances where parents refuse them because this may compound unintended harms when society interferes in the parent-child relationship. For this reason, I argue that parental refusal of cochlear implantation falls within Gillam's concept of the zone of parental discretion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Owen M Bradfield
- Law & Public Health Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Capasso M, Umbrello S. Responsible nudging for social good: new healthcare skills for AI-driven digital personal assistants. MEDICINE, HEALTH CARE, AND PHILOSOPHY 2022; 25:11-22. [PMID: 34822096 PMCID: PMC8613457 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-021-10062-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Traditional medical practices and relationships are changing given the widespread adoption of AI-driven technologies across the various domains of health and healthcare. In many cases, these new technologies are not specific to the field of healthcare. Still, they are existent, ubiquitous, and commercially available systems upskilled to integrate these novel care practices. Given the widespread adoption, coupled with the dramatic changes in practices, new ethical and social issues emerge due to how these systems nudge users into making decisions and changing behaviours. This article discusses how these AI-driven systems pose particular ethical challenges with regards to nudging. To confront these issues, the value sensitive design (VSD) approach is adopted as a principled methodology that designers can adopt to design these systems to avoid harming and contribute to the social good. The AI for Social Good (AI4SG) factors are adopted as the norms constraining maleficence. In contrast, higher-order values specific to AI, such as those from the EU High-Level Expert Group on AI and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, are adopted as the values to be promoted as much as possible in design. The use case of Amazon Alexa's Healthcare Skills is used to illustrate this design approach. It provides an exemplar of how designers and engineers can begin to orientate their design programs of these technologies towards the social good.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marianna Capasso
- Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127 Pisa, Italia
| | - Steven Umbrello
- Department of Values, Technology, & Innovation, School of Technology, Policy & Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Davies B, Savulescu J. Institutional Responsibility is Prior to Personal Responsibility in a Pandemic. THE JOURNAL OF VALUE INQUIRY 2022; 58:1-20. [PMID: 35001972 PMCID: PMC8721471 DOI: 10.1007/s10790-021-09876-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/12/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Ben Davies
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Suite 8, Littlegate House, St Ebbe’s Street, Oxford, OX1 1PT UK
| | - Julian Savulescu
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Suite 8, Littlegate House, St Ebbe’s Street, Oxford, OX1 1PT UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pahlman K, Fehross A, Fox GJ, Silva DS. Ethical health security in the age of antimicrobial resistance. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7:e007407. [PMID: 34996766 PMCID: PMC8743836 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007407] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2021] [Accepted: 12/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Owing to its potential human, social and economic costs, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is frequently referred to as a threat to health security. Simultaneously, health security and the preservation of antimicrobials are often described as a global public good. However, how the term 'public good' is used in the context of health security, and the values that underpin it, remains ambiguous. Policymaking is never value-free, and a better examination of such values is critical to understanding how issues such as AMR are problematised and how policy decisions are informed. DESIGN We used McDougall's version of critical interpretive synthesis to capture the recurring concepts and arguments within public policy, political science and applied ethics literature on AMR. Articles were analysed by identifying recurring ideas and developing themes across the literature. RESULTS A total of 77 papers were included in our review. In the context of health security and AMR, the concept of 'public good' appears to be used interchangeably with 'common good', reflecting confusion, but sometimes meaningful differences, regarding how antimicrobials, as a good, are conceived. Main approaches to addressing AMR are statism, globalism and regionalism, which appeal to different values in guiding policymakers. Common justificatory values underpinning preservation of antimicrobials as a public good were prevention of harm, solidarity, justice and rights. CONCLUSION The findings suggest that within the literature there is a lack of conceptual clarity as to whether antimicrobials constitute a public good or a common good. Moreover, the way in which antimicrobials are conceived and the approaches through which AMR as a threat to health security is addressed appear to be grounded in values that are often implicit. Being explicit about the values that underpin AMR and health security is not simply an intellectual exercise but has very real policy and programmatic implications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kari Pahlman
- Sydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Anson Fehross
- Sydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Greg J Fox
- Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Diego S Silva
- Sydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Johnson T. Enhancing the collectivist critique: accounts of the human enhancement debate. MEDICINE, HEALTH CARE, AND PHILOSOPHY 2021; 24:721-730. [PMID: 34132941 PMCID: PMC8557146 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-021-10030-7] [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: 06/08/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Individualist ethical analyses in the enhancement debate have often prioritised or only considered the interests and concerns of parents and the future child. The collectivist critique of the human enhancement debate argues that rather than pure individualism, a focus on collectivist, or group-level ethical considerations is needed for balanced ethical analysis of specific enhancement interventions. Here, I defend this argument for the insufficiency of pure individualism. However, existing collectivist analyses tend to take a negative approach that hinders them from adequately contributing to balanced ethical analysis, and often leads to a prohibitive stance. I argue this is due to two common problems with collectivist analyses: inappropriate acceptance of individualist assumptions, and failure to appropriately weigh individual vs collective ethical considerations. To further develop the collectivist critique in the enhancement debate, I suggest we may look to collectivism in public health ethics, which avoids these problems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tess Johnson
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bradfield OM, Giubilini A. Spoonful of honey or a gallon of vinegar? A conditional COVID-19 vaccination policy for front-line healthcare workers. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2021; 47:medethics-2020-107175. [PMID: 33975928 PMCID: PMC8257552 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-107175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Revised: 03/27/2021] [Accepted: 03/30/2021] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
Seven COVID-19 vaccines are now being distributed and administered around the world (figure correct at the time of submission), with more on the horizon. It is widely accepted that healthcare workers should have high priority. However, questions have been raised about what we ought to do if members of priority groups refuse vaccination. Using the case of influenza vaccination as a comparison, we know that coercive approaches to vaccination uptake effectively increase vaccination rates among healthcare workers and reduce patient morbidity if properly implemented. Using the principle of least restrictive alternative, we have developed an intervention ladder for COVID-19 vaccination policies among healthcare workers. We argue that healthcare workers refusing vaccination without a medical reason should be temporarily redeployed and, if their refusal persists after the redeployment period, eventually suspended, in order to reduce the risk to their colleagues and patients. This 'conditional' policy is a compromise between entirely voluntary or entirely mandatory policies for healthcare workers, and is consistent with healthcare workers' established professional, legal and ethical obligations to their patients and to society at large.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Owen M Bradfield
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alberto Giubilini
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics & Wellcome Centre for Ethics and the Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ancillotti M. An Effort Worth Making: A Qualitative Study of How Swedes Respond to Antibiotic Resistance. Public Health Ethics 2021; 14:1-11. [PMID: 34234840 PMCID: PMC8254642 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phaa033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Due to the alarming rise of antibiotic resistance, medically unwarranted use of antibiotics has assumed new moral significance. In this paper, a thematic content analysis of focus group discussions was conducted to explore lay people's views on the moral challenges posed by antibiotic resistance. The most important finding is that lay people are morally sensitive to the problems entailed by antibiotic resistance. Participants saw the decreasing availability of effective antibiotics as a problem of justice. This involves individual as well as collective moral responsibility. Yet, holding agents responsible for their use of antibiotics involves varying degrees of demandingness. In our discussion, these findings are related to the contemporary ethical debate on antibiotic resistance and two proposals for the preservation of antibiotic effectiveness are compared to and evaluated against participants' views.
Collapse
|
8
|
Savulescu J, Giubilini A, Danchin M. Global Ethical Considerations Regarding Mandatory Vaccination in Children. J Pediatr 2021; 231:10-16. [PMID: 33484698 PMCID: PMC7817402 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.01.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2020] [Revised: 01/07/2021] [Accepted: 01/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Whether children should be vaccinated against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) (or other infectious diseases such as influenza) and whether some degree of coercion should be exercised by the state to ensure high uptake depends, among other things, on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. For COVID-19, these factors are currently unknown for children, with unanswered questions also on children's role in the transmission of the virus, the extent to which the vaccine will decrease transmission, and the expected benefit (if any) to the child. Ultimately, deciding whether to recommend that children receive a novel vaccine for a disease that is not a major threat to them, or to mandate the vaccine, requires precise information on the risks, including disease severity and vaccine safety and effectiveness, a comparative evaluation of the alternatives, and the levels of coercion associated with each. However, the decision also requires balancing self-interest with duty to others, and liberty with usefulness. Separate to ensuring vaccine supply and access, we outline 3 requirements for mandatory vaccination from an ethical perspective: (1) whether the disease is a grave threat to the health of children and to public health, (2) positive comparative expected usefulness of mandatory vaccination, and (3) proportionate coercion. We also suggest that the case for mandatory vaccine in children may be strong in the case of influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian Savulescu
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK and Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Alberto Giubilini
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Margie Danchin
- Department of General Medicine, The Royal Children's Hospital and Vaccine Uptake Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute and Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
Vaccination decisions and policies present tensions between individual rights and the moral duty to contribute to harm prevention. This article focuses on ethical issues around vaccination behaviour and policies. It will not cover ethical issues around vaccination research. SOURCES OF DATA Literature on ethics of vaccination decisions and policies. AREAS OF AGREEMENT Individuals have a moral responsibility to vaccinate, at least against certain infectious diseases in certain circumstances. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Some argue that non-coercive measures are ethically preferable unless there are situations of emergency. Others hold that coercive measures are ethically justified even in absence of emergencies. GROWING POINTS Conscientious objection to vaccination is becoming a major area of discussion. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH The relationship between individual, collective and institutional responsibilities to contribute to the public good of herd immunity will be a major point of discussion, particularly with regard to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alberto Giubilini
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, 16-17 St Ebbes St, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Holm S. A general approach to compensation for losses incurred due to public health interventions in the infectious disease context. Monash Bioeth Rev 2020; 38:32-46. [PMID: 32130682 PMCID: PMC7095444 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00104-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
This paper develops a general approach to how society should compensate for losses that individuals incur due to public health interventions aimed at controlling the spread of infectious diseases. The paper falls in three parts. The first part provides an initial introduction to the issues and briefly outlines five different kinds of public health interventions that will be used as test cases. They are all directed at individuals and aimed at controlling the spread of infectious diseases (1) isolation, (2) quarantine, (3) recommended voluntary social distancing, (4) changes in health care provision for asymptomatic carriers of multi-resistant microorganisms, and (5) vaccination. The interventions will be briefly described including the various risks, burdens and harms individuals who are subject to these interventions may incur. The second part briefly surveys current compensation mechanisms as far as any exist and argue that even where they exist they are clearly insufficient and do not provide adequate compensation. The third part will then develop a general framework for compensation for losses incurred due to public health interventions in the infectious disease context. This is the major analytical and constructive part of the paper. It first analyses pragmatic and ethical arguments supporting the existence of an obligation on the part of the state to compensate for such losses, and then considers whether this obligation can be defeated by (1) resource considerations, or (2) issues relating to personal responsibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Søren Holm
- Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
- Center for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, HELSAM, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
| |
Collapse
|