Framing the utility and potential pitfalls of relationship and identity DNA testing across United States immigration contexts.

Genetic information is increasingly used at US border entry points, but the use of DNA in immigration contexts is not new. DNA testing for verification of identity or relationships for visa and asylum petitions began in the 1980s. Long-standing applications demonstrate both the utility and pitfalls of DNA testing in immigration contexts. Some of these pitfalls are shared with health-related contexts of DNA testing, but the power of government officials to deny immigration benefits, separate families, or make accusations of fraud among a vulnerable population elevates the potential harms, including stigmatization, discrimination, and coerced consent. We conducted semi-structured interviews with professional stakeholders on their understandings of the process of DNA testing, opinions on the role of DNA testing in immigration, and experiences with DNA applications in immigration. From the 22 interviews, we sourced 21 case examples involving DNA testing and supplemented these with 10 case examples provided by the study team. The 31 case examples capture instances of DNA testing for relationship or identity across five immigration contexts. Using the case examples, we developed three overarching utilities and six overarching pitfalls of DNA testing that apply across these immigration contexts. Our framework allows long-standing applications of DNA testing in immigration to inform stakeholders' approaches to applications in new contexts. As the use of DNA data in immigration contexts expands, its implementation should recognize the utility of DNA data to both migrants and government while guarding against pitfalls that could undermine the human rights and dignity of a vulnerable population.

AMEE Consensus Statement: Planetary health and education for sustainable healthcare.

The purpose of this Consensus Statement is to provide a global, collaborative, representative and inclusive vision for educating an interprofessional healthcare workforce that can deliver sustainable healthcare and promote planetary health. It is intended to inform national and global accreditation standards, planning and action at the institutional level as well as highlight the role of individuals in transforming health professions education. Many countries have agreed to 'rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes' to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% within 10 years and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, including in healthcare. Currently, however, health professions graduates are not prepared for their roles in achieving these changes. Thus, to reduce emissions and meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), health professions education must equip undergraduates, and those already qualified, with the knowledge, skills, values, competence and confidence they need to sustainably promote the health, human rights and well-being of current and future generations, while protecting the health of the planet.The current imperative for action on environmental issues such as climate change requires health professionals to mobilize politically as they have before, becoming strong advocates for major environmental, social and economic change. A truly ethical relationship with people and the planet that we inhabit so precariously, and to guarantee a future for the generations which follow, demands nothing less of all health professionals.This Consensus Statement outlines the changes required in health professions education, approaches to achieve these changes and a timeline for action linked to the internationally agreed SDGs. It represents the collective vision of health professionals, educators and students from various health professions, geographic locations and cultures. 'Consensus' implies broad agreement amongst all individuals engaged in discussion on a specific issue, which in this instance, is agreement by all signatories of this Statement developed under the auspices of the Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE).To ensure a shared understanding and to accurately convey information, we outline key terms in a glossary which accompanies this Consensus Statement (Supplementary Appendix 1). We acknowledge, however, that terms evolve and that different terms resonate variably depending on factors such as setting and audience. We define education for sustainable healthcare as the process of equipping current and future health professionals with the knowledge, values, confidence and capacity to provide environmentally sustainable services through health professions education. We define a health professional as a person who has gained a professional qualification for work in the health system, whether in healthcare delivery, public health or a management or supporting role and education as 'the system comprising structures, curricula, faculty and activities contributing to a learning process'. This Statement is relevant to the full continuum of training - from undergraduate to postgraduate and continuing professional development.

Why use indicators to measure and monitor the inclusion of climate change and environmental sustainability in health professions' education?

Currently, health professionals are inadequately prepared to meet the challenges that climate change and environmental degradation pose to health systems. Health professions' education (HPE) has an ethical responsibility to address this and must include the health effects of climate change and environmental sustainability across all curricula. As there is a narrow, closing window in which to take action to avoid the worst health outcomes from climate change, urgent, systematic, system-level change is required by the education sector. Measuring, monitoring, and reporting activity using indicators have been demonstrated to support change by providing a focus for action. A review of the literature on the use of indicators in medical education for climate change and health, however, yielded no publications. The framework of targets and indicators developed for implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 and the UNESCO initiative of the Education for Sustainable Development provide a guide for the development of indicators for HPE. Engaging stakeholders and achieving consensus on an approach to indicator development is essential and, where they exist, accreditation standards may have a supporting role. Creating capacity for environmentally sustainable health care at scale and pace should be our collective goal as health professions' educators.

The 2019 report of the MJA-Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: a turbulent year with mixed progress.

The MJA-Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was established in 2017 and produced its first Australian national assessment in 2018. It examined 41 indicators across five broad domains: climate change impacts, exposures and vulnerability; adaptation, planning and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. It found that, overall, Australia is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change on health, and that policy inaction in this regard threatens Australian lives. In this report we present the 2019 update. We track progress on health and climate change in Australia across the same five broad domains and many of the same indicators as in 2018. A number of new indicators are introduced this year, including one focused on wildfire exposure, and another on engagement in health and climate change in the corporate sector. Several of the previously reported indicators are not included this year, either due to their discontinuation by the parent project, the Lancet Countdown, or because insufficient new data were available for us to meaningfully provide an update to the indicator. In a year marked by an Australian federal election in which climate change featured prominently, we find mixed progress on health and climate change in this country. There has been progress in renewable energy generation, including substantial employment increases in this sector. There has also been some progress at state and local government level. However, there continues to be no engagement on health and climate change in the Australian federal Parliament, and Australia performs poorly across many of the indicators in comparison to other developed countries; for example, it is one of the world's largest net exporters of coal and its electricity generation from low carbon sources is low. We also find significantly increasing exposure of Australians to heatwaves and, in most states and territories, continuing elevated suicide rates at higher temperatures. We conclude that Australia remains at significant risk of declines in health due to climate change, and that substantial and sustained national action is urgently required in order to prevent this.

Conversations Surrounding the Use of DNA Tests in the Family Reunification of Migrants Separated at the United States-Mexico Border in 2018.

In April 2018, the U.S. implemented a "zero-tolerance" immigration policy that would lead to the separation of more than 2,000 migrant families over the following months. By that summer, the policy and resultant family separations had generated a media storm that swept up the public. In early June, the government announced its consideration of DNA testing to aid in the detection of human trafficking in immigration contexts. Later that month, as the government retracted the child separation policy, the public began questioning how children and adults would be reunited and discussing the potential usefulness of DNA testing for those reunifications. Then in early July, the government announced that DNA testing was indeed being used, and by mid-month the public's outrage over the use of DNA was strong. We set out to examine the public dialogue on DNA testing-including misunderstandings and miscommunications-both in newspaper coverage and on Twitter in the 2-month summer period of 2018, at the height of public discussion of migrant family separations and then reunifications. We performed database searches identifying 263 newspaper articles and used Twitter's advanced search function identifying 153 Tweets containing discussion of the use of DNA for migrant family reunification. Upon the resulting sources, we performed content analysis, analyzing for slant on the immigration policy and the use of DNA tests using a combination of open and closed codes. Our analysis showed that perspectives on the use of DNA diverged in connection with perspectives on the immigration policy, and that there was a contrast among the cohorts in the stated utility of DNA testing. These findings offer insight into a) how DNA testing in a highly politicized immigration context was represented in media coverage and b) the public's understanding of the role that DNA testing could or should play in immigration. By detailing the role that comments from experts, stakeholders, and the public played in these discussions, we hope to provide lessons for communications with the public about future non-medical applications of genetic technologies.