Ethical analysis in public health

Food fights: common good versus individual interests

“…These mutations may contribute to the higher risk of vision loss from ARMD among first-degree relatives of patients with the condition, estimated at 4 times the risk for the general population. 7 How can ARMD be prevented? As mentioned by Weir, stopping smoking and eating a healthy diet are both important.…”

Evolutionary morality and public health

“…The morality of humans and other primates originated millions of years ago as a set of socially beneficial behaviours that have been produced and conserved by evolution because of their selective advantages 4,5 . Bearing in mind that social groups, for the 99% of humankind's evolution, consisted of a few tens of members living in harshly savage environments that were dangerous for lonely individuals, it is clear that socially beneficial moral traits evolved genetically as an excellent evolutionary strategy for enhancing the chances of survival of those small communities 5 . Considering that their risk of extinction was almost constantly impending in their hostile surroundings, morality was primarily aimed at protecting the common good, even at some individual costs.…”

Evolutionary ethic and embryonic stem‐cell research

“…The evolutionary ethic that enabled humankind to survive for a long time and still guides other primates 2 was axiomatically aimed at preventing and reducing the sufferings of the social members, because their pains, as expressions of diseases and impairments, constituted a threat to the fitness and survival of the ancestral groups, 3 which consisted of a few tens of members 4 . Therefore, metaphorically, evolution has taught humankind that ethical actions are those aimed at reducing social sufferings, thereby favouring the survival of the group, and that unethical actions are those that consciously cause social pains or hamper their reduction, thereby potentially hastening the extinction of the community 2−4 …”

“…Unless we overturn the original meaning of morality or we venture the conceptually untenable thesis that what is unethical in little communities can be ethical in great societies, 4 we must condemn the religious obstruction of the therapeutic use of human embryos because this hindrance represents an immoral evolutionary nonsense, 2 which would be selectively disadvantageous and potentially fatal for small communities. Had the therapeutic use of human embryos been available in primitive ages, our ancestors would have resolutely used those amorphous and microscopic agglomerates of insensitive cells representing no parental investment 2 to cure and save the sick members of the social group, because their diseases and premature deaths weakened the entire community, thereby jeopardizing its survival.…”