The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic constitutes not only a danger for public health, but may also threaten civil liberties. Looking at the examples of recent events in Poland and Hungary, the authors argue that governments may misuse pandemic for their political advantage, thus endangering public health. Political decisions taken to stem the spread of pandemics should be limited and strictly proportionate to the situation.

Purpose: The method of diagnosing diabetic retinopathy (DR) through artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems has been commercially available since 2018. This introduces new ethical challenges with regard to obtaining informed consent from patients. The purpose of this work is to develop a checklist of items to be disclosed when diagnosing DR with AI systems in a primary care setting.Methods: Two systematic literature searches were conducted in PubMed and Web of Science databases: a narrow search focusing on DR and a broad search on general issues of AI-based diagnosis. An ethics content analysis was conducted inductively to extract two features of included publications: (1) novel information content for AI-aided diagnosis and (2) the ethical justification for its disclosure.Results: The narrow search yielded n = 537 records of which n = 4 met the inclusion criteria. The information process was scarcely addressed for primary care setting. The broad search yielded n = 60 records of which n = 11 were included. In total, eight novel elements were identified to be included in the information process for ethical reasons, all of which stem from the technical specifics of medical AI.Conclusions: Implications for the general practitioner are two-fold: First, doctors need to be better informed about the ethical implications of novel technologies and must understand them to properly inform patients. Second, patient's overconfidence or fears can be countered by communicating the risks, limitations, and potential benefits of diagnostic AI systems. If patients accept and are aware of the limitations of AI-aided diagnosis, they increase their chances of being diagnosed and treated in time.

Background Social diversity can affect healthcare outcomes in situations when access to healthcare is limited for specific groups. Although the principle of equality is one of the central topics on the agenda of the European Union (EU), its scope in the field of healthcare, however, is relatively unexplored. The aim of this study is to identify and systematically analyze primary and secondary legislation of the EU Institutions that concern the issue of access to healthcare for various minority groups. In our research, we have concentrated on three features of diversity: a) gender identity and sexual orientation, b) race and ethnicity, and c) religion or belief. Method and materials For the purpose of this analysis, we conducted a search of database Eur-Lex, the official website of European Union law and other public documents of the European Union, based on specific keywords accompanied by review of secondary literature. Relevant documents were examined with regard to the research topic. Our search covered documents that were in force between 13 December 2007 and 31 July 2019. Results Generally, the EU legal system prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, racial or ethnic origin, sex, and sexual orientation. However, with regard to the issue of non-discrimination in access to healthcare EU secondary law provides protection against discrimination only on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin and sex. The issue of discrimination in healthcare on the grounds of religion or belief, gender identity and sexual orientation is not specifically addressed under EU secondary law. Discussion The absence of regulations regarding non-discrimination in the EU secondary law in the area of healthcare may result from the division of competences between the European Union and the Member States. Reluctance of the Member States to adopt comprehensive antidiscrimination regulations leads to a situation, in which protection in access to healthcare primarily depends on national regulations. Conclusions Our study shows that EU antidiscriminatory law with regard to access to healthcare is fragmentary. Prohibition of discrimination of the level of European binding law does not fully encompass all aspects of social diversity.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Persons with schizophrenia are vulnerable regarding human rights violations. Aims: The aim of this research is to systematically analyse judgements by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) involving persons with schizophrenia. Methods: A systematic search of judgements by the ECtHR, using the search term ‘schizophrenia’. Descriptive statistics and a qualitative thematic analysis were performed. Results: A total of n = 105 judgements were included, originating in n = 29 countries. Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights was ruled by the ECtHR to have been violated in 45.7% of judgements, Article 3 (Prohibition of torture) in 20.0% and Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) in 19.0%. Relevant themes were inadequate access to mental health care, especially in prisons and during police operations, involuntary confinement, detention and ill-treatment as a risk factor for psychosis, the right to family life versus the rights of others, extradition/expulsion and protection of other persons’ human rights against violent behaviour by persons with schizophrenia. Discussion: Persons with schizophrenia often do not receive adequate treatment and are especially vulnerable in prisons, where ill-treatment can be an additional risk factor. They can have both offender and victim status. The judgements suggest that the ECtHR has a balanced view on involuntary confinement. National legislation and internal hospital guidelines should be written in a manner to help minimise human rights violations against persons with schizophrenia.

Background: The discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) opened the possibilities for reprogramming cells back to a pluripotent state. Because of no apparent ethical issues connected with donation and derivation of biomaterial, iPSCs are considered as a research alternative to ethically highly disputed human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). However, the unique character of iPSCs leads to numerous ethical considerations, which mainly concern the issue of donor information and consent for the use of biospecimen in research and drug evaluation. Methods: For the purpose of this analysis, we conducted a review of the literature in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. The search algorithm led to the identification of 1461 results. After removing duplicates and screening of title and abstract, 90 articles were found to be relevant to the study's objective. Full texts of these articles were apprised and 62 articles were excluded at this step for not properly addressing the study's objective. In the final step, 28 articles were included in the analysis. Analyzed were both research and non-research manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals. Results: In the case of iPSC research, the information process should be guided by general frameworks established for research on human subjects but also by specific characteristics of iPSCs. We determined four main domains and 12 thematic subdomains that should be included in donor information. Our results show that majority of authors agree to the content of information with regard to the areas of general information, storage of cells, and protection of privacy. Two main issues that are discussed in the literature are donor's consent for use in future studies and the process of donor information. Conclusions: Given the unique character of iPSCs and the possibility of their various uses in the future, the content of donor information should contain specific information central to iPSC research. Effective methods of communicating information to donors should combine written and oral information with the possible use of multimedia.

Diversity competency is an approach for improving access to healthcare for members of minority groups. It includes a commitment to institutional policies and practices aimed at the improvement of the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals. The aim of this research is to investigate whether and how such a commitment is included in internal documents of hospitals in Croatia, Germany, Poland, and Slovenia. Using the methods of documentary research and thematic analysis we examined internal documents received from hospitals in these countries. In all four countries, the documents concentrate on general statements prohibiting discrimination with regard to healthcare provision. Specific regulations concerning ethnicity and culture focus on the issue of language barriers. With regard to religious practices, the documents from Croatia, Poland, and Slovenia focus on dominant religious groups. Observance of other religious practices and customs is rarely addressed. Healthcare needs of patients with non-heteronormative sexual orientation, intersexual, and transgender patients are explicitly addressed in only a few internal documents. Diversity competency policies are not comprehensively implemented in hospital internal regulations in hospitals under investigation. There is a need for the development and implementation of comprehensive policies in hospitals aiming at the specific needs of minority groups.