Is the Cure Worse than the Disease? The Ethics of Imposing Risk in Public Health.

Efforts to improve public health, both in the context of infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases, will often consist of measures that confer risk on some persons to bring about benefits to those same people or others. Still, it is unclear what exactly justifies implementing such measures that impose risk on some people and not others in the context of public health. Herein, we build on existing autonomy-based accounts of ethical risk imposition by arguing that considerations of imposing risk in public health should be centered on a relational autonomy and relational justice approach. Doing so better captures what makes some risk permissible and others not by exploring the importance of power and context in such deliberations. We conclude the paper by applying a relational account of risk imposition in the cases of (a) COVID-19 measures and (b) the regulation of sugar-sweetened beverages to illustrate its explanatory power.

Between rules and resistance: moving public health emergency responses beyond fear, racism and greed.

In times of a public health emergency, lawyers and ethicists play a key role in ensuring that government responses, such as travel restrictions, are both legally and ethically justified. However, when travel bans were imposed in a broadly discriminatory manner against southern African countries in response to the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant in late 2021, considerations of law, ethics or science did not appear to guide politicians' decisions. Rather, these bans appeared to be driven by fear of contagion and electoral blowback, economic motivations and inherently racist assumptions about low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). With a new pandemic treaty and amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR) on the near-term horizon, ethics and international law are at a key inflection point in global health governance. Drawing on examples of bordering practices to contain contagion in the current pandemic and in the distant past, we argue that the current IHR is not adequately constructed for a just and equitable international response to pandemics. Countries impose travel restrictions irrespective of their need or of the health and economic impact of such measures on LMICs. While the strengthening and reform of international laws and norms are worthy pursuits, we remain apprehensive about the transformative potential of such initiatives in the absence of collective political will, and suggest that in the interim, LMICs are justified in seeking strategic opportunities to play the same stark self-interested hardball as powerful states.

R&D during public health emergencies: the value(s) of trust, governance and collaboration.

In January 2021, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO, warned that the world was 'on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure [that] will be paid with lives and livelihoods in the world's poorest countries'. We are now past the brink. Many high-income countries have vaccinated their populations (which, in some cases, includes third and even fourth doses) and are loosening public health and social measures, while low-income and middle-income countries are struggling to secure enough supply of vaccines to administer first doses. While injustices abound in the deployment and allocation of COVID-19 vaccines, therapies and diagnostics, an area that has hitherto received inadequate ethical scrutiny concerns the upstream structures and mechanisms that govern and facilitate the research and development (R&D) associated with these novel therapies, vaccines and diagnostics. Much can be learnt by looking to past experiences with the rapid deployment of R&D in the context of public health emergencies. Yet, much of the 'learning' from past epidemics and outbreaks has largely focused on technical or technological innovations and overlooked the essential role of important normative developments; namely, the importance of fostering multiple levels of trust, strong and fair governance, and broad research collaborations. In this paper, we argue that normative lessons pertaining to the conduct of R&D during the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa provide important insights for how R&D ought to proceed to combat the current COVID-19 pandemic and future infectious disease threats.

The abandonment of Australians in India: an analysis of the right of entry as a security right in the age of COVID-19.

In May 2021, when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV2 was wreaking havoc in India, the Australian Federal Government banned its citizens and residents who were there from coming back to Australia for 14 days on penalty of fines or imprisonment. These measures were justified on the grounds of protecting the broader Australian public from potentially importing the Delta strain, which officials feared would then seed a local outbreak. Those Australians stranded in India, and their families and communities back home, claimed that they were abandoned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government. This case-along with other barriers used as part of border control measures in the name of public health-raises the following question: is it ever morally permissible for a state to ban its citizens and residents from entering their own country during a pandemic? I conclude that it's impermissible. I argue that persons have a right of entry that should be understood as a security right. This security right should be non-derogable because it's a foundational good that is necessary for life-planning purposes. Moreover, it is a right that people should be able to rely upon absolutely, even during pandemics. At the very least, should someone believe that there are rare exceptions to the right of entry on public health grounds, governments have a duty-grounded in the principle of reciprocity-to support those who are temporarily denied entry. In the case of Australians stranded in India, I will argue that the Australian Federal Government failed on all accounts.

Predictive Biomathematical Modeling Compared to Objective Sleep During COVID-19 Humanitarian Flights.

BACKGROUND: Biomathematical modeling software like the Sleep, Activity, Fatigue, and Task Effectiveness (SAFTE) model and Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool (FAST) help carriers predict fatigue risk for planned rosters. The ability of a biomathematical model to accurately estimate fatigue risk during unprecedented operations, such as COVID-19 humanitarian ultra-long-range flights, is unknown. Azul Cargo Express organized and conducted five separate humanitarian missions to China between May and July 2020. Prior to conducting the missions, a sleep-prediction algorithm (AutoSleep) within SAFTE-FAST was used to predict in-flight sleep duration and pilot effectiveness. Here we compare AutoSleep predictions against pilots' sleep diary and a sleep-tracking actigraphy device (Zulu watch, Institutes for Behavior Resources) from Azul's COVID-19 humanitarian missions.METHODS: Pilots wore Zulu watches throughout the mission period and reported sleep duration for their in-flight rest periods using a sleep diary. Agreement between AutoSleep, diary, and Zulu watch measures was compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Goodness-of-fit between predicted effectiveness distribution between scenarios was evaluated using the R² statistic.RESULTS: A total of 20 (N = 20) pilots flying across 5 humanitarian missions provided sleep diary and actigraphy data. ICC and R² values were >0.90, indicating excellent agreement between sleep measures and predicted effectiveness distribution, respectively.DISCUSSION: Biomathematical predictions of in-flight sleep during unprecedented humanitarian missions were in agreement with actual sleep patterns during flights. These findings indicate that biomathematical models may retain accuracy even under extreme circumstances. Pilots may overestimate the amount of sleep that they receive during extreme flight-duty periods, which could constitute a fatigue risk.Devine JK, Garcia CR, Simoes AS, Guelere MR, de Godoy B, Silva DS, Pacheco PC, Choynowski J, Hursh SR. Predictive biomathematical modeling compared to objective sleep during COVID-19 humanitarian flights. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2022; 93(1):4-12.

Pilot Sleep Behavior across Time during Ultra-Long-Range Flights.

Fatigue risk to the pilot has been a deterrent for conducting direct flights longer than 12 h under normal conditions, but such flights were a necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty (N = 20) pilots flying across five humanitarian missions between Brazil and China wore a sleep-tracking device (the Zulu watch), which has been validated for the estimation of sleep timing (sleep onset and offset), duration, efficiency, and sleep score (wake, interrupted, light, or deep Sleep) throughout the mission period. Pilots also reported sleep timing, duration, and subjective quality of their in-flight rest periods using a sleep diary. To our knowledge, this is the first report of commercial pilot sleep behavior during ultra-long-range operations under COVID-19 pandemic conditions. Moreover, these analyses provide an estimate of sleep score during in-flight sleep, which has not been reported previously in the literature.

Ethics Guidance for Environmental Scientists Engaged in Surveillance of Wastewater for SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to rapid and widespread international pursuit of wastewater surveillance for genetic signals of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing the pandemic. Environmental scientists and engineers familiar with the techniques required for this endeavor have responded. Many of the environmental scientists engaged in these investigations have not necessarily had experience with the ethical obligations associated with generating and handling human health data. The Canadian Water Network facilitated adoption of these surveillance methods by creating a national coalition, which included a public health advisory group that recognized a need for ethics guidance for the wastewater approach to public health surveillance. This Policy Analysis addresses that need and is based on a review of relevant ethics literature tightly focused on ethics applicable to public health surveillance. That review revealed that classical health bioethics governing clinical practice and general public health ethics guidance did not adequately address key issues in wastewater surveillance. The 2017 World Health Organization guidelines, directly based on a systematic literature review, specifically addressed ethical issues in public health surveillance. The application of relevant ethical guidance to wastewater surveillance is analyzed and summarized for environmental scientists.

Social distancing, social justice, and risk during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Social distancing is an important and necessary measure to help arrest the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it does place persons who are socially or politically marginalized, including those who are of lower socio-economic status, at risk of further harms. In other words, marginalized or disadvantaged persons are at risk of both contracting SARS-CoV-2 and the risk of harms that may come about because of the social distancing measures themselves. Finally, a third layer of risk faced by marginalized persons would be the overuse of utility (i.e., maximize the benefit of resource x) as the primary ethics principle upon which to make allocation decisions, since oftentimes it is resource-intensive to help those in positions of social marginality. This three-fold risk of harm to which marginalized persons are subjected runs counter to the very notion of social justice that underpins public health. Social distancing in a socially just manner requires dialoguing with affected populations and providing social supports to marginalized persons, regardless of the associated costs.