Global justice and the opportunity costs of conservation

Opportunity costs can represent a significant portion of the costs associated with conservation projects and frequently outstrip other kinds of cost. They are typically understood to refer to the benefits someone would have obtained if conservation projects had not required them to give up current activities, such as farming or hunting or if the land had been available for uses other than conservation. This familiar way of identifying opportunity costs is flawed, however, because it threatens to condone, or take advantage of, the injustices that many people face that affect their opportunities. I integrated ideas from the political theory of global justice to examine how the analysis of opportunity costs illustrates the importance of considering conservation and issues of global justice together, rather than thinking about them in isolation. I distinguish four baselines for defining opportunity costs. A status quo baseline defines opportunity costs by asking what people would have earned had a conservation project not happened. A willingness to accept baseline defines them by asking people what it would take to make them indifferent to whether a conservation project takes place or not. An antipoverty baseline suggests that opportunity costs have been met when people affected by a project are not left in poverty. An egalitarian baseline suggests opportunity costs have been met when people are not left in relative disadvantage, with worse than average opportunities. I argue that the egalitarian baseline is the most acceptable from the point of view of justice. Such a baseline would suggest that, in practice, many of the world's poor are being unjustly treated, or even exploited, as a result of conservation activities.

On the morality of vaccination tourism

Vaccination tourism (whereby citizens of one nation travel to a different, usually more developed nation to receive a vaccine unavailable or with little availability at home) during the COVID pandemic raises a host of moral issues and is usually met with criticism. From the perspective of the society of origin, the criticism is that those who use their socio-economic privileges to go abroad and receive the vaccine ahead of other citizens instead of 'making the line' act objectionably because in doing so they use their purchasing power to obtain a benefit that should not be distributed like any other product in the market. From the perspective of the society of destination, the criticism is that citizens and residents should receive the vaccines first; after all, their government purchased vaccines (with their taxes) to immunize the local population. The paper calls into question both objections to vaccination tourism. There might be other reasons to oppose it, but this pair of objections cannot ground a moral criticism of the practice.

Tax Justice Beyond National Borders-International or Interpersonal?

Recent times have seen growing calls for considerations of justice to be given a greater role in international taxation. The main driver of these calls are distributive concerns, although agreement is still missing as to what this means both in principle and in practice. This article asks whether it is the task of international tax law at all to implement principles of distributive justice beyond the national context and gives an overview of how the 'global justice debate' in contemporary political philosophy bears on this question. When it comes to distributive duties with respect to taxing rights, it is crucial to differentiate between the collective and the individual level. Absent a robust assumption of a benevolent and capable government on the recipient side, the reallocation of taxing rights from state to state does not necessarily help when it comes to fulfilling duties of justice towards individuals.

From self-interest to solidarity: One path towards delivering refugee health

The recent and ongoing refugee crisis in Europe highlights conflicting attitudes about the rights of migrants and refugees to health care in transition and destination countries. Some European and Scandinavian states, such as Germany and Sweden, have welcomed large numbers of migrants, while others, such as the U.K., have been significantly less open. In part, this is because of reluctance by certain national governments to incur what are seen as the high costs of delivering aid and care to migrants. In response to these assumptions, some theorists have argued that the appropriate way to view the health needs of migrants is not in terms of rights, but in terms of the interests of destination and transition countries-and have argued that providing care to migrants and refugees will generate benefits for their host countries. However, self-interest alone is less effective at motivating the provision of care for health deprivations that do not pose a threat to third parties, or to migrants and refugees in poor or distant countries. In this paper, I argue that while self-interest is unlikely in itself to motivate the provision of all necessary health care to all migrants and refugees, and may risk stigmatizing already vulnerable persons, it can provide the foundation upon which such motivations can be built. My goal is therefore to show how and why a more just approach to the provision of health care to migrants can and should be derived from narrower, self-interested commitments to preserving citizen health.

Can Theories of Global Justice Be Useful in Humanitarian Response?

Why is it that humanitarianism and theories of global justice seem to have relatively little engagement with each other? This article discusses some of the reasons for this being the case, and argues that instead of seeing these two fields as separate or adversarial they should be viewed as complementary. The article begins with a brief overview of humanitarianism, in order to argue for the relevance of justice in humanitarianism. The second section focuses on analyzing selected theories of justice- those of Peter Singer, John Kekes, and Thomas Pogge-through a particular lens, that of the question of responsibility for global well-being. The article concludes by arguing that theories of global justice can be beneficial for humanitarian causes, not in a comprehensive and consistent "all-or-nothing" manner, but rather on a case-by-case basis and through selective application of particular arguments.

Should Social Value Obligations be Local or Global?

According to prominent bioethics scholars and international guidelines, researchers and sponsors have obligations to ensure that the products of their research are reasonably available to research participants and their communities. In other words, the claim is that research is unethical unless it has local social value. In this article, we argue that the existing conception of reasonable availability should be replaced with a social value obligation that extends to the global poor (and not just research participants and host communities). To the extent the social value requirement has been understood as geographically constrained to the communities that host research and the countries that can afford the products of research, it has neglected to include the global poor as members of the relevant society. We argue that a new conception of social value obligations is needed for two reasons. First, duties of global beneficence give reason for researchers, sponsors, and institutions to take steps to make their products more widely accessible. Second, public commitments made by many institutions acknowledge and engender responsibilities to make the products of research more accessible to the global poor. Future research is needed to help researchers and sponsors discharge these obligations in ways that unlock their full potential.

Governance of Transnational Global Health Research Consortia and Health Equity

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia of institutions from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries that undertake programs of research. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Although such consortia typically aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries, what is required for them to do so has not been clearly defined. This article takes a conceptual approach to explore how the governance of transnational global health research consortia should be structured to advance health equity. To do so, it applies an account called shared health governance to derive procedural and substantive guidance. A checklist based on this guidance is proposed to assist research consortia determine where their governance practices strongly promote equity and where they may fall short.

Health Systems Research Consortia and the Promotion of Health Equity in Low and Middle-Income Countries

Health systems research is widely identified as an indispensable means to achieve the goal of health equity between and within countries. Numerous health systems research consortia comprised of institutions from high-income countries and low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are currently undertaking programs of research in LMICs. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Recent conceptual work has explored what features might be necessary for health systems research consortia and their research programs to promote health equity. Identified features include selecting research priorities that focus on improving access to high-quality health services and/or financial protection for disadvantaged populations in LMICs and conducting research capacity strengthening that promotes the independent conduct of health systems research in LMICs. Yet, there has been no attempt to investigate whether existing consortia have such characteristics. This paper describes the results of a survey undertaken with health systems research consortia leaders worldwide to assess how consistent current practice is with the proposed ethical guidance. The findings suggest that consortia may be fairly well organised to promote health equity, but have scope for improvement, particularly in terms of achieving inclusive priority-setting.

Medical tourism's impacts on health worker migration in the Caribbean: five examples and their implications for global justice

Medical tourism is a practice where individuals cross international borders in order to access medical care. This practice can impact the global distribution of health workers by potentially reducing the emigration of health workers from destination countries for medical tourists and affecting the internal distribution of these workers. Little has been said, however, about the impacts of medical tourism on the immigration of health workers to medical tourism destinations. We discuss five patterns of medical tourism-driven health worker migration to medical tourism destinations: 1) long-term international migration; 2) long-term diasporic migration; 3) long-term migration and ‘black sheep’; 4) short-term migration via time share; and 5) short-term migration via patient-provider dyad. These patterns of health worker migration have repercussions for global justice that include potential negative impacts on the following: 1) health worker training; 2) health worker distributions; 3) local provision of care; and 4) local economies. In order to address these potential negative impacts, policy makers in destination countries should work to ensure that changes in health worker training and licensure aimed at promoting the medical tourism sector are also supportive of the health needs of the domestic population. Policy makers in both source and destination countries should be aware of the effects of medical tourism on health worker flows both into and out of medical tourism destinations and work to ensure that the potential harms of these worker flows to both groups are mitigated.

Limiting and facilitating access to innovations in medicine and agriculture: a brief exposition of the ethical arguments

Taking people's longevity as a measure of good life, humankind can proudly say that the average person is living a much longer life than ever before. The AIDS epidemic has however for the first time in decades stalled and in some cases even reverted this trend in a number of countries. Climate change is increasingly becoming a major challenge for food security and we can anticipate that hunger caused by crop damages will become much more common.Since many of the challenges humanity faced in the past were overcome by inventive solutions coming from the life sciences, we are compelled to reconsider how we incentivize science and technology development so that those in need can benefit more broadly from scientific research. There is a huge portion of the world population that is in urgent need for medicines to combat diseases that are currently neglected by the scientific community and could immensely benefit from agricultural research that specifically targets their environmental conditions. At the same time efforts have to be made to make the fruits of current and future research more widely accessible. These changes would have to be backed by a range of moral arguments to attract people with diverging notions of global justice. This article explores the main ethical theories used to demand a greater share in the benefits from scientific progress for the poor. Since life sciences bring about a number of special concerns, a short list of conflictive issues is also offered.

A framework to link international clinical research to the promotion of justice in global health

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. Theories of justice from political philosophy establish obligations for parties from high-income countries owed to parties from low and middle-income countries. We have developed a new framework that is based on Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm to strengthen the link between international clinical research and justice in global health. The 'research for health justice' framework provides direction on three aspects of international clinical research: the research target, research capacity strengthening, and post-trial benefits. It identifies the obligations of justice owed by national governments, research funders, research sponsors, and investigators to trial participants and host communities. These obligations vary from those currently articulated in international research ethics guidelines. Ethical requirements of a different kind are needed if international clinical research is to advance global health equity.

Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan

The wish to extend the human lifespan has a long tradition in many cultures. Optimistic views of the possibility of achieving this goal through the latest developments in medicine feature increasingly in serious scientific and philosophical discussion. The authors of this paper argue that research with the explicit aim of extending the human lifespan is both undesirable and morally unacceptable. They present three serious objections, relating to justice, the community and the meaning of life.