Negotiating "The Social" and Managing Tuberculosis in Georgia

In this paper I utilize anthropological insights to illuminate how health professionals and patients navigate and negotiate what for them is social about tuberculosis in order to improve treatment outcomes and support patients as human beings. I draw on ethnographic research about the implementation of the DOTS (Directly Observed Therapy, Short Course) approach in Georgia's National Tuberculosis Program in the wake of the Soviet healthcare system. Georgia is a particularly unique context for exploring these issues given the country's rich history of medical professionalism and the insistence that the practice of medicine is a moral commitment to society. I argue for critical attention to the ways in which treatment recipients and providers navigate what, for them, is "social" about therapeutic practices and their significance for avoiding biological and social reductionism.

Reciprocity and Ethical Tuberculosis Treatment and Control

This paper explores the notion of reciprocity in the context of active pulmonary and laryngeal tuberculosis (TB) treatment and related control policies and practices. We seek to do three things: First, we sketch the background to contemporary global TB care and suggest that poverty is a key feature when considering the treatment of TB patients. We use two examples from TB care to explore the role of reciprocity: isolation and the use of novel TB drugs. Second, we explore alternative means of justifying the use of reciprocity through appeal to different moral and political theoretical traditions (i.e., virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism). We suggest that each theory can be used to provide reasons to take reciprocity seriously as an independent moral concept, despite any other differences. Third, we explore general meanings and uses of the concept of reciprocity, with the primary intention of demonstrating that it cannot be simply reduced to other more frequently invoked moral concepts such as beneficence or justice. We argue that reciprocity can function as a mid-level principle in public health, and generally, captures a core social obligation arising once an individual or group is burdened as a result of acting for the benefit of others (even if they derive a benefit themselves). We conclude that while more needs to be explored in relation to the theoretical justification and application of reciprocity, sufficient arguments can be made for it to be taken more seriously as a key principle within public health ethics and bioethics more generally.

Legal briefing: coerced treatment and involuntary confinement for contagious disease

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving coerced treatment and involuntary confinement for contagious disease. Recent high profile court cases involving measles, tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus, and especially Ebola, have thrust this topic back into the bioethics and public spotlights. This has reignited debates over how best to balance individual liberty and public health. For example, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has officially requested public comments, held open hearings, and published a 90-page report on "ethical considerations and implications" raised by "U.S. public policies that restrict association or movement (such as quarantine)." Broadly related articles have been published in previous issues of The Journal of Clinical Ethics. We categorize recent legal developments on coerced treatment and involuntary confinement into the following six categories: 1. Most Public Health Confinement Is Voluntary 2. Legal Requirements for Involuntary Confinement 3. New State Laws Authorizing Involuntary Confinement 4. Quarantine Must Be as Least Restrictive as Necessary 5. Isolation Is Justified Only as a Last Resort 6. Coerced Treatment after Persistent Noncompliance.

Feasibility of an ingestible sensor-based system for monitoring adherence to tuberculosis therapy

Poor adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment hinders the individual’s recovery and threatens public health. Currently, directly observed therapy (DOT) is the standard of care; however, high sustaining costs limit its availability, creating a need for more practical adherence confirmation methods. Techniques such as video monitoring and devices to time-register the opening of pill bottles are unable to confirm actual medication ingestions. A novel approach developed by Proteus Digital Health, Inc. consists of an ingestible sensor and an on-body wearable sensor; together, they electronically confirm unique ingestions and record the date/time of the ingestion. A feasibility study using an early prototype was conducted in active TB patients to determine the system’s accuracy and safety in confirming co-ingestion of TB medications with sensors. Thirty patients completed 10 DOT visits and 1,080 co-ingestion events; the system showed 95^.0% (95% CI 93^.5–96^.2%) positive detection accuracy, defined as the number of detected sensors divided by the number of transmission capable sensors administered. The specificity was 99^.7% [95% CI 99^.2–99^.9%] based on three false signals recorded by receivers. The system’s identification accuracy, defined as the number of correctly identified ingestible sensors divided by the number of sensors detected, was 100%. Of 11 adverse events, four were deemed related or possibly related to the device; three mild skin rashes and one complaint of nausea. The system’s positive detection accuracy was not affected by the subjects’ Body Mass Index (p = 0^.7309). Study results suggest the system is capable of correctly identifying ingestible sensors with high accuracy, poses a low risk to users, and may have high patient acceptance. The system has the potential to confirm medication specific treatment compliance on a dose-by-dose basis. When coupled with mobile technology, the system could allow wirelessly observed therapy (WOT) for monitoring TB treatment as a replacement for DOT.

Critical reflections on evidence, ethics and effectiveness in the management of tuberculosis: public health and global perspectives

Background

Tuberculosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Recent scholarly attention to public health ethics provides an opportunity to analyze several ethical issues raised by the global tuberculosis pandemic.

Discussion

Recently articulated frameworks for public health ethics emphasize the importance of effectiveness in the justification of public health action. This paper critically reviews the relationship between these frameworks and the published evidence of effectiveness of tuberculosis interventions, with a specific focus on the controversies engendered by the endorsement of programs of service delivery that emphasize direct observation of therapy. The role of global economic inequities in perpetuating the tuberculosis pandemic is also discussed.

Summary

Tuberculosis is a complex but well understood disease that raises important ethical challenges for emerging frameworks in public health ethics. The exact role of effectiveness as a criterion for judging the ethics of interventions needs greater discussion and analysis. Emerging frameworks are silent about the economic conditions contributing to the global burden of illness associated with tuberculosis and this requires remediation.