Tag: developing countries

Bioethics Blogs

Politics of Pain: Investigating the Ethics of Palliative Care as a Global Human Right

by Alix Masters

Within the last decade, strides have been made in the field of global health policy to extend the reaches of palliative care universally.  In 2014, the World Health Organization formally declared palliative care a global human right.[1] This development in global health policy is a positive one when we consider the medical politics of pain relief across racial difference.  Both in the United States and abroad, there is a long medical history of discriminatory practices against certain groups of people with regard to pain management—including withholding necessary pain medication altogether.  Therefore, in many ways the declaration of palliative care as a human right is a necessary step in ensuring all peoples, regardless of identity, have their pain taken seriously by the medical establishment and have their comfort made a medical priority.  When we consider how different cultures negotiate beliefs around death and pain relief, however, the issue of palliative care as a universal human right becomes more complex.  For example, countries with strong histories of Buddhist thought and culture have traditionally opposed the ideology of palliative care.[26]  In Buddhism, suffering is considered an inextricable part of life and masking this suffering through medical intervention is looked down upon.[2]  For example, Vietnam, a country with a culture strongly imbued with Eastern Buddhist values, has a long history of rejecting palliative care and pain medications in general.[26]  Due to this, the World Health Organization’ declaration that palliative care is a universal human right could also be understood as a Western organization blatantly ignoring Buddhist cultural traditions. 

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Easy and Powerful Way to Reduce Our Climate Impact

July 28, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

Toward voluntary, progressive, humane population policy

At this point, what should be readily apparent is that a vast realm of educational and policy approaches to reducing fertility exists between the extremes of total blackout, and coercion. In fact, Travis Rieder of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins and his colleagues have outlined a number of such approaches. These run the gamut from educational and purely incentive-based programs such as widespread media campaigns and expanding access to family planning, which he advocates for populations of developing countries which bear minimal responsibility for the climate crisis, to changing the tax code so that it penalizes, rather than incentivizes, procreation—an approach he suggests only for the wealthy whose emissions are greatest.

Certainly there are significant cultural and political challenges to be overcome to pave the way for“population engineering” measures like those identified by Rieder et al. Yet these challenges are less daunting than the prospect of reducing our emissions adequately through technology and energy efficiency alone, and considerably more palatable than the environmental meltdown that awaits us if we shy away from adequate action.

… Read More

Be the first to like.
Share

HuffPo

Tags: , , , , , ,

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Guest Blogger: Introducing Gaelen Snell

It has been some time since my last posting. Of course, this is not due to their being a shortage of bioethics challenges related to developing countries. There is never a shortage of that. Rather, a number of research and training projects have pulled me away from my usual late night musings. I will get back to it. Fortunately, there is also some help on the way.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

European Parliament document announced, as one of its priority, defend women right to abortion

The European Parliament recently announced its “priorities” for its next Commission on the Status of Women are “universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights.” The EU document implies that limiting access to abortion is an infringement of women’s rights. The EU Recommendation invites the EU Council to “counter the impact of the gag rule”, a term used by abortion advocates have used to denigrate Reagan-era policy which ensures US taxpayer only funds groups that promise not to promote or perform abortions. The text was drafted by the Committee on Women’s Rights (FEMM). FEMM’s rapporteurs described the policy as forms of “sexism and Trumpism”, and said somebody “in the Oval Office wants us to… stop repeating the claim ‘Our bodies – our rights‘”.

Critics of the document underline that the EU Council and Commission have repeatedly affirmed ‘that the organization lacks competence on abortion, a subject left to member states’ legislatures. Furthermore, the EU cannot adopt policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries that include abortion. “No support is to be given… to encourage sterilization or abortion”. The relevant rules on foreign aid must also provide that the EU cannot promote abortion as a method of family planning and that it most provide post-abortion counseling, which helps “to avoid repeat abortions”  (C-Fam – Washington USA, February 23, 2017).

La entrada European Parliament document announced, as one of its priority, defend women right to abortion aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Silence = Death

May 18, 2017

by Sean Philpott-Jones, Chair, Bioethics Program of Clarkson University & Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Silence = Death

As Donald Trump fights for his political life following new revelations about wholly inappropriate disclosure of classified materials and potential obstruction of justice, he has quietly issued new orders that will condemn thousands of women and children around the world to death.

Largely overlooked given the media frenzy about the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in the US Presidential election was an announcement that the TrumpAdministration will vastly expand the scope of the “Global Gag Rule”, the international anti-abortion policy first enacted by Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Also known as the Mexico City Policy, the rule prohibits organizations that receive family planning money from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from providing or promoting abortion. This is true even if they do so with private money. In fact, if they take so much as a single dollar from the US, they can’t even mention the word ‘abortion’ regardless of whether or not these organizations actually provide such services.

Every time a Democrat is in the White House, the global gag rule is rescinded. Every time a Republican enters the Oval Office, it is reinstated. President Trump himself did so just three days after assuming office. Until now, family planning organizations around the world have largely learned to deal with this ebb-and-flow. That is all about to change.

On Monday, Trump announced a new policy called Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance. That policy expands the scope of the Global Gag Rule.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

In the Journals – April 2017 by Danya Glabau

Critical Public Health

On difference and doubt as tools for critical engagement with public health

Catherine M. Will

This paper argues that critical public health should reengage with public health as practice by drawing on versions of Science and Technology Studies (STS) that ‘de-centre the human’ and by seeking alternative forms of critique to work inspired by Foucault. Based on close reading of work by Annemarie Mol, John Law, Vicky Singleton and others, I demonstrate that these authors pursue a conversation with Foucault but suggest new approaches to studying contemporary public health work in different settings. Proposing that we ‘doubt’ both the unity of public health and its effects, I argue that this version of STS opens up a space to recognise multiplicity; to avoid idealising what is being criticised; and to celebrate or care for public health practices as part of critique. Finally I oppose the view that considering technologies, materials and microbes leads to micro-level analysis or political neutrality, and suggest that it allows us to reframe studies of public health to account for inequalities and to draw attention to weak or retreating states, active markets and the entangled relations of humans and non-humans across the world.

 

Biopolitical precarity in the permeable body: the social lives of people, viruses and their medicines

Elizabeth Mills

This article is based on multi-sited ethnography that traced a dynamic network of actors (activists, policy-makers, health care systems, pharmaceutical companies) and actants (viruses and medicines) that shaped South African women’s access to, and embodiment of, antiretroviral therapies (ARVs).

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

His Parents’ Death Gave Him A Mission: Stop The Medical Brain Drain

When Chris Ategeka was a boy of 7 in Uganda, his parents died of HIV/AIDS. And his brother, not yet 5, died of malaria. The problem, as he sees it, is that upon graduation from medical school on the African continent, newly minted health care workers are hired away for more money elsewhere, pulling the talent from developing countries to, as he says, “slightly developed countries and Western countries”

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Global Health Policy: Trump and the Reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule

By: Jorge Luis Rivera-Agosto

On January 23, 2017, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum reinstating the so-called Mexico City Policy. The Memorandum conditions U.S. global health and family planning assistance to a strict rule that precludes foreign non-governmental organizations (also known as “NGOs”) from promoting or performing abortion as a method of family planning. Also known as the “global gag rule,” this policy represents a blow specifically to women’s health worldwide. Thanks to this new action, it will become harder, like in past years when it was in effect, to have resources to support family planning and reproductive health services, such as “family counseling, contraceptive commodities, condoms, and reproductive cancer screenings.” Even though the U.S. government won’t retract from the Memoranda until this Administration ceases, global efforts should be made to ameliorate the negative effects the new policy will cause.

The Mexico City Policy was first enacted by President Reagan in 1984 – and at the time, it represented an expansion of existing legislative restrictions of the use of U.S. funds for abortions internationally. It was then rescinded by President Clinton in 1991; reinstated by President Bush in 2001; rescinded by President Obama in 2009; and reinstated and expanded by President Trump in 2017. The policy requires foreign NGOs “to certify that they will not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, using funds from any source (including non-U.S. funds), as a condition for receiving U.S. government global family planning assistance and any other U.S. global health assistance.” The reason given to enact such policy was that the U.S.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Luhrmann and Marrow’s Our Most Troubling Madness by Murphy Halliburton

Our Most Troubling Madness: Case Studies in Schizophrenia Across Cultures

T.M. Luhrmann and Jocelyn Marrow, editors

University of California Press, 2016, 304 pages

 

A key premise of this volume of ethnographic case studies is that schizophrenia, or the various conditions we label as schizophrenia and related psychoses, varies in crucial ways in terms of experience, prognosis and outcome in different sociocultural contexts. Tanya Luhrmann’s introduction to the volume, which features twelve articles presenting twelve individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia (including three cases presented by Luhrmann), casts doubt on the biomedical model of schizophrenia, or at least the strong biomedical model where an individual’s biology is the determining factor in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia. Support for this critique comes from within the fields of psychiatry, psychology and related disciplines, and not just from anthropology, the disciplinary home base of many of the authors in this compilation. This supports the volume’s efforts to speak to an audience beyond the contributors’ own disciplines and “serve as a positive catalyst for change” in how we treat psychosis, especially in European and North American settings (5).

The introduction also briefly traces the history of theories of schizophrenia in psychiatry and anthropology, including moments when the two fields overlapped as with Gregory Bateson’s theory that schizophrenia results from a “double bind” that develops in a person’s psyche from conflicting social cues. This theory, put forth by an anthropologist, had a significant place in psychiatrists’ understanding of pathogenesis until the rise of the medical model deflected the blame from families toward “random bad genetic luck” (16).

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Individually-randomized controlled trials of vaccines against the next outbreak

Guest Post: Nir Eyal, Marc Lipsitch

Paper: Vaccine testing for emerging infections: the case for individual randomisation 

The humbling experience of international response to Ebola taught the world a thing or two on preparing for Zika and for other emerging infections.

Some of those lessons pertain to vaccine development against emerging infections. One lesson was that vigorous vaccine development should start long in advance of outbreaks. CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, was recently launched with an initial investment of half a billion US dollars from the Gates Foundation, Britain’s Wellcome Trust and the governments of Japan, Norway and Germany. There is also growing recognition that best practices on vaccine testing should be developed prior to outbreaks, from a study methodology viewpoint.

By contrast, in Zika, ethical guidelines on response in general and on an aspect of vaccine testing were created only once the pandemic erupted. Shouldn’t ethical disputes, e.g. on trial design for vaccine candidates, be ironed out in advance of emerging infections?

One persistent ethical question in vaccine testing pertains to individually-randomized control in efficacy trials. At the height of the 2014-5 Ebola outbreak, individually-randomized controlled trials were much maligned. Our paper at the Journal of Medical Ethics sets out to defend that approach for vaccine efficacy testing in emerging infections, including highly fatal and untreatable ones in developing countries.

Nearly everyone agrees that scientifically, individually-randomized controlled trials are the gold standard of clinical research. But during the Ebola outbreak, ethicists, leaders, and humanitarian workers opposed them. For testing vaccine against a highly fatal infection without approved drugs or vaccines, they deemed these designs unethical.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.