Towards A new model of global health justice: the case of COVID-19 vaccines.

This paper questions an exclusively state-centred framing of global health justice and proposes a multilateral alternative. Using the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to illustrate, we bring to light a broad range of global actors up and down the chain of vaccine development who contribute to global vaccine inequities. Section 1 (Background) presents an overview of moments in which diverse global actors, each with their own priorities and aims, shaped subsequent vaccine distribution. Section 2 (Collective action failures) characterises collective action failures at each phase of vaccine development that contributed to global vaccine disparities. It identifies as critical the task of establishing upstream strategies to coordinate collective action at multiple stages across a range of actors. Section 3 (A Multilateral model of global health governance) takes up this task, identifying a convergence of interests among a range of stakeholders and proposing ways to realise them. Appealing to a responsibility to protect (R2P), a doctrine developed in response to human rights atrocities during the 1990s, we show how to operationalise R2P through a principle of subsidiarity and present ethical arguments in support of this approach.

Gender inequity and COVID-19 vaccination policies for pregnant women in the Americas

The region of the Americas has been the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic's worst outcome in terms of number of deaths due to COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and the postpartum period has been found to be associated with increased risk of mortality and severe disease. Several Latin American and Caribbean countries have disproportionally high maternal mortality rates due to COVID-19. Although this region achieved relatively high vaccination rates among the general adult population, there were differing restrictions regarding the vaccination of those who were pregnant. In a pandemic, policies reflect political priorities in responses to the threats posed to populations and play an important role in promoting gender equity. This paper reports the results of an ethical analysis of 45 national COVID-19 vaccination public policies from seven countries – Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and United States. The analysis drew on reproductive justice and feminist bioethics frameworks, paying close attention to whether and how gender and social and economic inequities were addressed. It found that exclusionary approaches in immunization policies which restricted access to vaccination during pregnancy were often justified on the basis of a lack of evidence about the effects of immunization of pregnant persons, and on the grounds of medical expertise, to the detriment of women's autonomy and agency. As such these policies reiterate patriarchal moral understandings of women, pregnancy and motherhood. In practice, they counter human rights gender equity and equality principles, and became lethal, particularly to racialized women in Latin America. During an emerging lethal disease, policies and policy development must consider the intersection of oppressive structures to protect and guarantee rights of women, girls, and pregnant persons.

Equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.

BACKGROUND: Rapid data sharing can maximize the utility of data. In epidemics and pandemics like Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19, the case for such practices seems especially urgent and warranted. Yet rapidly sharing data widely has previously generated significant concerns related to equity. The continued lack of understanding and guidance on equitable data sharing raises the following questions: Should data sharing in epidemics and pandemics primarily advance utility, or should it advance equity as well? If so, what norms comprise equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics? Do these norms address the equity-related concerns raised by researchers, data providers, and other stakeholders? What tensions must be balanced between equity and other values? METHODS: To explore these questions, we undertook a systematic scoping review of the literature on data sharing in epidemics and pandemics and thematically analyzed identified literature for its discussion of ethical values, norms, concerns, and tensions, with a particular (but not exclusive) emphasis on equity. We wanted to both understand how equity in data sharing is being conceptualized and draw out other important values and norms for data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. RESULTS: We found that values of utility, equity, solidarity, and reciprocity were described, and we report their associated norms, including researcher recognition; rapid, real-time sharing; capacity development; and fair benefits to data generators, data providers, and source countries. The value of utility and its associated norms were discussed substantially more than others. Tensions between utility norms (e.g., rapid, real-time sharing) and equity norms (e.g., researcher recognition, equitable access) were raised. CONCLUSIONS: This study found support for equity being advanced by data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. However, norms for equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics require further development, particularly in relation to power sharing and participatory approaches prioritizing inclusion. Addressing structural inequities in the wider global health landscape is also needed to achieve equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.

Equitable Design and Use of Digital Surveillance Technologies During COVID-19: Norms and Concerns.

Given the unprecedented scale of digital surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic, designing and implementing digital technologies in ways that are equitable is critical now and in future epidemics and pandemics. Yet to date there has been very limited consideration about what is necessary to promote their equitable design and implementation. In this study, literature relating to the use of digital surveillance technologies during epidemics and pandemics was collected and thematically analyzed for ethical norms and concerns related to equity and social justice. Eleven norms are reported, including procedural fairness and inclusive approaches to design and implementation, designing to rectify or avoid exacerbating inequities, and fair access. Identified concerns relate to digital divides, stigma and discrimination, disparate risk of harm, and unfair design processes. We conclude by considering what dimensions of social justice the norms promote and whether identified concerns can be addressed by building the identified norms into technology design and implementation practice.

Vaccine-enhanced disease: case studies and ethical implications for research and public health.

Vaccination is a cornerstone of global public health. Although licensed vaccines are generally extremely safe, both experimental and licensed vaccines are sometimes associated with rare serious adverse events. Vaccine-enhanced disease (VED) is a type of adverse event in which disease severity is increased when a person who has received the vaccine is later infected with the relevant pathogen. VED can occur during research with experimental vaccines and/or after vaccine licensure, sometimes months or years after a person receives a vaccine. Both research ethics and public health policy should therefore address the potential for disease enhancement. Significant VED has occurred in humans with vaccines for four pathogens: measles virus, respiratory syncytial virus, Staphylococcus aureus, and dengue virus; it has also occurred in veterinary research and in animal studies of human coronavirus vaccines. Some of the immunological mechanisms involved are now well-described, but VED overall remains difficult to predict with certainty, including during public health implementation of novel vaccines. This paper summarises the four known cases in humans and explores key ethical implications. Although rare, VED has important ethical implications because it can cause serious harm, including death, and such harms can undermine vaccine confidence more generally - leading to larger public health problems. The possibility of VED remains an important challenge for current and future vaccine development and deployment. We conclude this paper by summarising approaches to the reduction of risks and uncertainties related to VED, and the promotion of public trust in vaccines.

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.

SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies: ethics and risk minimisation.

COVID-19 poses an exceptional threat to global public health and well-being. Recognition of the need to develop effective vaccines at unprecedented speed has led to calls to accelerate research pathways ethically, including by conducting challenge studies (also known as controlled human infection studies (CHIs)) with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19). Such research is controversial, with concerns being raised about the social, legal, ethical and clinical implications of infecting healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 for research purposes. Systematic risk evaluations are critical to inform assessments of the ethics of any proposed SARS-CoV-2 CHIs. Such evaluations will necessarily take place within a rapidly changing and at times contested epidemiological landscape, in which differing criteria for the ethical acceptability of research risks have been proposed. This paper critically reviews two such criteria and evaluates whether the use of effective treatment should be a necessary condition for the ethical acceptability of SARS-CoV-2 CHIs, and whether the choice of study sites should be influenced by COVID-19 incidence levels. The paper concludes that ethical evaluations of proposed SARS-CoV-2 CHIs should be informed by rigorous, consultative and holistic approaches to systematic risk assessment.