Regulation of genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes as a public health tool: a public health ethics analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes have been proposed as a public health measure against the high incidence of mosquito-borne diseases among the poor in regions of the global South. While uncertainties as well as risks for humans and ecosystems are entailed by the open-release of GE mosquitoes, a powerful global health governance non-state organization is funding the development of and advocating the use of those bio-technologies as public health tools. In August 2016, the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) approved the uncaged field trial of a GE Aedes aegypti mosquito in Key Haven, Florida. The FDA's decision was based on its assessment of the risks of the proposed experimental public health research project. The FDA is considered a global regulatory standard setter. So, its approval of the uncaged field trial could be used by proponents of GE mosquitoes to urge countries in the global South to permit the use of those bio-technologies. METHOD: From a public health ethics perspective, this paper evaluates the FDA's 2016 risk assessment of the proposed uncaged field trial of the GE mosquito to determine whether it qualified as a realistic risk evaluation. RESULTS: The FDA's risk assessment of the proposed uncaged field trial did not proximate the conditions under which the GE mosquitoes would be used in regions of the global South where there is a high prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases. CONCLUSION: Given that health and disease have political-economic determinants, whether a risk assessment of a product is realistic or not particularly matters with respect to interventions meant for public health problems that disproportionately impact socio-economically marginalized populations. If ineffective public health interventions are adopted based on risk evaluations that do not closely mirror the conditions under which those products would actually be used, there could be public health and ethical costs for those populations.

The ethics of medical tourism: from the United Kingdom to India seeking medical care.

Is the practice of UK patients traveling to India as medical tourists morally justified? This article addresses that question by examining three ethically relevant issues. First, the key factor motivating citizens of the United Kingdom to seek medical treatment in India is identified and analyzed. Second, the life prospects of the majority of the citizens of the two nations are compared to determine whether the United Kingdom is morally warranted in relying on India to meet the medical needs of its citizens. Third, as neoliberal reforms are justified on the grounds that they will help the indigent populations affected by them, the impact of medical tourism--a neoliberal initiative--on India's socially and economically marginalized groups is scrutinized.

A robust, particularist ethical assessment of medical tourism.

Recently, in increasing numbers, citizens of wealthy nations are heading to poorer countries for medical care. They are traveling to the global South as medical tourists because in their home nations either they cannot get timely medical care or they cannot afford needed treatments. This essay offers a robust, particularist ethical assessment of the practice of citizens of richer nations traveling to poorer countries for healthcare.