BackgroundCatastrophic natural disasters and epidemics claim thousands of lives and have severe and lasting consequences, accompanied by human suffering. The Ebola epidemic of 2014–2016 and the current COVID-19 pandemic have revealed some of the practical and ethical complexities relating to the management of dead bodies. While frontline staff are tasked with saving lives, managing the bodies of those who die remains an under-resourced and overlooked issue, with numerous ethical and practical problems globally.MethodsThis scoping review of literature examines the management of dead bodies during epidemics and natural disasters. 82 articles were reviewed, of which only a small number were empirical studies focusing on ethical or sociocultural issues that emerge in the management of dead bodies.ResultsWe have identified a wide range of ethical and sociocultural challenges, such as ensuring dignity for the deceased while protecting the living, honouring the cultural and religious rituals surrounding death, alleviating the suffering that accompanies grieving for the survivors and mitigating inequalities of resource allocation. It was revealed that several ethical and sociocultural issues arise at all stages of body management: notification, retrieving, identification, storage and burial of dead bodies.ConclusionWhile practical issues with managing dead bodies have been discussed in the global health literature and the ethical and sociocultural facets of handling the dead have been recognised, they are nonetheless not given adequate attention. Further research is needed to ensure care for the dead in epidemics and that natural disasters are informed by ethical best practice.

Global health practitioners and policymakers have become increasingly vocal about the complex challenges of identifying and quantifying the causes of death of the world’s poorest people. To address this cause-of-death uncertainty and to minimise longstanding sensitivities about full autopsies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been one of the foremost advocates of minimally invasive autopsy technology (MIA). MIA involves using biopsy needles to collect samples from key organs and body fluids; as such, it is touted as potentially more acceptable and less invasive than a complete autopsy, which requires opening the cadaver. In addition, MIA is considered a good means of collecting accurate bodily samples and can provide the crucial information needed to address cause-of-death uncertainty. In this paper, we employ qualitative data to demonstrate that while MIA technology has been introduced as a solution to the enduring cause-of-death uncertainty, the development and deployment of technologies such as these always constitute interventions in complex social and moral worlds; in this respect, they are both the solutions to and the causes of new kinds of uncertainties. We deconstruct the ways in which those new dimensions of uncertainty operate at different levels in the global health context.

No abstract

This paper utilises empirical data to explore the value of ‘body work’ performed by last responders charged with the duty of dead body management, with a focus on the Global South. While frontline staff work to save lives, little is known about the experiences and roles of those who care for the dead in global health in times of crises and even during normal times. This paper discusses ethical and socio-cultural challenges pathologists face in ‘working on the bodies of others’ while conducting any form of post-mortem procedures – necessary for ascertaining and recording the causes of death. Identifying and reporting the cause of death have significant public health benefits and provide closure for bereaved families. Despite the foregoing, the pathology field does not attract funding from governments or donors, and it is overlooked compared to other disciplines. Autopsy procedure bears social stigma – as it is associated with body mutilation and therefore disrespecting the dead; certain cultural beliefs or taboos about impurity and death persist, further raising some social and ethical tensions. As a result, the dearth of autopsy procedures contributes to the cause of death uncertainty in global health.

In recent years, the global health community has been increasingly reporting the problem of ‘invisibility’ as aspects of health and wellbeing that are often overlooked and ignored, and predominantly affects the most marginalized and precarious people. However, it is unclear how to realistically manage global health invisibility and move forward. In this letter, we reflect on several case studies of invisibility experienced by people in Brazil, Malaysia, West Africa and other transnational contexts. Highlighting the complex nature of invisibility and its interconnectedness with social, political and economic issues and trends, we argue that while local and targeted interventions might provide relief and comfort locally, they will not be able to solve the underlying causes of invisibility. Moving forward, we argue that in dealing with an intersectional issue such as invisibility, twenty-first century global health bioethics could pursue a more ‘disturbing’ framework, challenging the narrow comforting solutions and sociomaterial inequalities of the sociopolitical status quo. We highlight that comforting and disturbing bioethical frameworks should not be considered as opposing sides, but as two approaches working in tandem in order to achieve the internationally set global health milestones of providing better health and wellbeing for everyone. In doing so, we call for taking seriously insights from sociology, anthropology, postcolonial studies, history, feminist studies and other styles of critical reasoning that have long been disturbing the grand assumptions about people and their conditions, and, practically, to rediscover the ethos of the WHO Alma Ata Declaration, calling for cooperation and support beyond the narrow market logic that dominates the landscape of contemporary global health.