This systematic review identifies the most oft-used and -discussed ethical concepts and principles used in disaster planning around CSCs. Although discussion of more nuanced issues (e.g., health equity) are present, the majority of items substantively engaging in ethical discussion around disaster planning do so regarding triage and why ethics is needed in disaster response generally. Public health implications. A significant evolution in disaster planning has occurred within the past decade; ethical theories and frameworks have been put to work. For ethical guidance to be useful, it must be practical and implementable. Although high-level, abstract frameworks were once prevalent in disaster planning-especially in the early days of pandemic planning-concerns about the ethically difficult concept of CSCs pervade scholarly articles. Ethical norms must be clearly stated and justified and practical guidelines ought to follow from them. Ethical frameworks should guide clinical protocols, but this requires that ethical analysis clarifies what strategies to use to honor ethical commitments and achieve ethical objectives. Such implementation issues must be considered well ahead of a disaster. As governments and health care systems plan for mass casualty events, ethical guidance that is theoretically sound and practically useful can-and should-form an important foundation from which to build practical guidance for responding to disasters with morally appropriate means.

Pandemic influenza planning in the United States violates the demands of social justice in 2 fundamental respects: it embraces the neutrality of procedural justice at the expense of more substantive concern with health disparities, thus perpetuating a predictable and preventable social injustice, and it fails to move beyond lament to practical planning for alleviating barriers to accessing care. A pragmatic social justice approach, addressing both health disparities and access barriers, should inform pandemic preparedness. Achieving social justice goals in pandemic response is challenging, but strategies are available to overcome the obstacles. The public engagement process of one state's pandemic ethics project influenced the development of these strategies.

It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a unique set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examinees 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES--and in particular, behavioral health--research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.

BackgroundIn line with its half century old penal code, Ghana currently criminalizes and penalizes behaviors of some key populations – populations deemed to be at higher risk of acquiring or transmitting Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Men who have sex with men (MSM), and sex workers (SWs) fit into this categorization. This paper provides an analysis of how enactment and implementation of rights-limiting laws not only limit rights, but also amplify risk and vulnerability to HIV in key and general populations. The paper derives from a project that assessed the ethics sensitivity of key documents guiding Ghana’s response to its HIV epidemic. Assessment was guided by leading frameworks from public health ethics, and relevant articles from the international bill of rights.DiscussionGhana’s response to her HIV epidemic does not adequately address the rights and needs of key populations. Even though the national response has achieved some public health successes, palpable efforts to address rights issues remain nascent. Ghana’s guiding documents for HIV response include no advocacy for decriminalization, depenalization or harm reduction approaches for these key populations. The impact of rights-restricting codes on the nation’s HIV epidemic is real: criminalization impedes key populations’ access to HIV prevention and treatment services. Given that they are bridging populations, whatever affects the Ghanaian key populations directly, affects the general population indirectly.SummaryThe right to the highest attainable standard of health, without qualification, is generally acknowledged as a fundamental human right. Unfortunately, this right currently eludes the Ghanaian SW and MSM. The paper endorses decriminalization as a means of promoting this right. In the face of opposition to decriminalization, the paper proposes specific harm reduction strategies as approaches to promote health and uplift the diminished rights of key populations. Thus the authors call on Ghana to remove impediments to public health services provision to these populations. Doing so will require political will and sufficient planning toward prioritizing HIV prevention, care and treatment programming for key populations.

On May 1, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to allow use of the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 . Remdesivir is an investigational drug studied in clinical trials for COVID-19 and is available to children and pregnant women through compassionate-use access but is not yet FDA approved. In early May, the US Department of Health and Human Services began to distribute remdesivir, donated by Gilead Sciences, Inc., to hospitals and state health departments for emergency use; multiple shipments have since been distributed. This process has raised questions of how remdesivir should be allocated. The Minnesota Department of Health has collaborated with the Minnesota COVID Ethics Collaborative and multiple clinical experts to issue an Ethical Framework for May 2020 Allocation of Remdesivir in the COVID-19 Pandemic. The framework builds on extensive ethical guidance developed for public health emergencies in Minnesota before the COVID-19 crisis. The Minnesota remdesivir allocation framework specifies an ethical approach to distributing the drug to facilities across the state and then among COVID-19 patients within each facility. This article describes the process of developing the framework and adjustments in the framework over time with emergence of new data, analyzes key issues addressed, and suggests next steps. Sharing this framework and the development process can encourage transparency and may be useful to other states formulating and refining their approach to remdesivir EUA allocation.

No abstract

Codes of confidentiality play an essential role in the intimate discourses in many learned professions. Codes with various prescriptions exist. The Hippocratic Oath for example, prescribes rewards to the secret keeper, for keeping secret what ought to be kept secret, and punishments for failing. In public health practice, partner notification, arguably is one endeavor that tests the durability of this secret keeping doctrine of the health professional. We present an interest-analysis of partner notification in the context of HIV service rendition. Using principles-based analysis, the interests of the individual, the state/public health, and the bioethicist’s are discussed. The public health interests in partner notification, which are usually backed by state statutes and evidence, are premised on the theory that partners are entitled to knowledge. This theory posits that knowledge empowers individuals to avoid continuing risks; knowledge of infection allows for early treatment; and that knowledgeable partners can adapt their behavior to prevent further transmission of infection to others. However, persons infected with HIV often have counter interests. For instance, an infected person may desire to maintain the privacy of their health status from unnecessary disclosure because of the negative impacts of disclosure, or because notification without a matching access to HIV prevention and treatment services is detrimental. The interest of the bioethicist in this matter is to facilitate a resolution of these conflicted interests. Our analysis concludes that governmental interests are not absolute in comparison with the interests of the individual. We reiterate that any effort to morally balance the benefits of partner notification with its burdens ought to first recognize the multivalent nature of the interests at play.

Our society's practice of inadequately representing women as subjects of clinical research is unjust, not only because it results in inequalities in the quality and availability of care that have a detrimental impact on women's health, but also because it is linked to women's oppression. Although recent policy changes help to resolve the problems, more must be done. Additional remedies for the injustices of our society's research practices are proposed.