The Diamond Princess cruise ship has been anchored at the Yokohama port in Japan since February 3, 2020. A total of 691 cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection had been confirmed as of February 23. The government initially assumed that the infection was not spreading aboard and therefore indicated that any persons who either tested negative for the virus or were asymptomatic should immediately disembark. However, on February 5, the government set a 14-day health observation period because of the severity of the infection. Passengers confirmed to be free from infection began disembarking on Day 15 (February 19) of the quarantine. The effectiveness and validity of infection control, justification for the timing of inspections, and even the nature of COVID-19 itself now are all in question. The ethical considerations related to cruise ship infection control include the reasonable justification for isolation, the psychological fragility and quality of life of the isolated passengers and crew members, the procedural justice inherent in a forced quarantine, and the optimization of control measures. The international coordination framework and the global ramifications of such outbreaks should be reevaluated by the international community. Denying a ship's entry based on local politics is incompatible with global justice. Events such as these require an international response and global regulations that seek to reduce disparities.

In recent years, “difficult” patients have gained attention, and behavior contracts have been introduced into clinical practice. This is because some patients behave inappropriately toward healthcare providers, and behavior contracts require patients to refrain from such behavior. However, it has been highlighted that behavior contracts have ethical problems. We present an ethical analysis of behavior contracts from the viewpoint of psychiatric practice and patient psychology. We analyze why patients become “difficult” for medical practitioners and explain why consideration must be given to the psychological aspects of the patient and the burden of mental illness. Behavior contracts are inappropriate because they do not consider individual patients’ psychological or psychiatric conditions and are applied uniformly. Moreover, the behavioral model that behavior contracts assume is not justified by today’s psychiatry. Furthermore, in this article, we show how behavior contracts promote the stigmatization of mental illness. For these reasons, we argue that the use of behavior contracts in clinical practice is not ethically justified. However, we add that physical violence against healthcare providers should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

While the world rushed to develop treatments for COVID-19, some turned hopefully to drug repurposing (drug repositioning). However, little study has addressed issues of drug repurposing in emergency situations from a broader perspective, taking into account the social and ethical ramifications. When drug repurposing is employed in emergency situations, the fairness of resource distribution becomes an issue that requires careful ethical consideration.This paper examines the drug repurposing in emergency situations focusing on the fairness using Japanese cases. Ethical issues under these circumstances addressed by the authors include: maintaining the evidence level, integrity of clinical research ethics, and voluntary consent by original indication patients. In order to address these issues, they argue that rapid accumulation of ethically and scientifically valid evidence is required, as is obtaining information on resource quantity.

No abstract