The journey metaphor used by Nie and colleagues (2016) can be analyzed in terms of the way in which health care professionals can support well-being and attend to the aspects of illness that often...

In “Medical Ethics: Common or Uncommon Morality,”1 Rosamond Rhodes defends a specialist view of medical ethics, specifically the ethics of physicians. Rhodes’s account is specifically about the ethics of medical professionals, rooted in what these professionals do. It would seem to follow that other healthcare professions might be subject to ethical standards that differ from those applicable to physicians, rooted in what these other professions do, but I leave this point aside for purposes of this commentary. Rhodes’s view includes both (...) a negative and a positive thesis. The negative thesis is that precepts in medical ethics—understood as the ethics of physicians—cannot be derived from principles of common morality. The positive thesis is two-fold: that precepts in medical ethics must be derived from an account of the special nature of what physicians do, and that this account is to be understood through an overlapping consensus of rational and reasonable medical professionals. While I agree emphatically with, and have learned a great deal from, Rhodes’s defense of the negative thesis, I disagree with both claims in Rhodes’s positive thesis, for reasons I will now explain after a brief observation about the negative thesis. (shrink)

Hepatitis C is a global public health threat, affecting 56 million people worldwide. The World Health Organization has committed to eliminating hepatitis C by 2030. Although new treatments have revolutionised the treatment and care of people with hepatitis C, treatment uptake has slowed in recent years, drawing attention to the need for innovative approaches to reach elimination targets. One approach involves using existing notifiable disease data to contact people previously diagnosed with hepatitis C. Within these disease surveillance systems, however, competing (...) tensions exist, including protecting individual rights to privacy and autonomy, and broader public health goals. We explore these issues using hepatitis C and Australia’s legislative and regulatory frameworks as a case study. We examine emerging uses of notification data to contact people not yet treated, and describe some of the ethical dilemmas associated with the use and non-use of this data and the protections that exist to preserve individual rights and public health. We reveal weaknesses in rights protections and processes under Australian public health and human rights legislation and argue for consultation with and involvement of affected communities in policy and intervention design before notification data is used to increase hepatitis C treatment coverage. (shrink)

In order to demedicalize the ethics of pre-exposure prophylaxis as HIV prevention, I consider the social effects on men who have sex with men. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers MSM to be the highest risk group for contracting HIV in the USA. The ethics of using PrEP as HIV prevention among MSM, however, has both a medical dimension and a social dimension. While the medical dimension of the ethics of PrEP includes concerns about side effects, drug resistance (...) and distribution, the social dimension of the ethics of PrEP includes concerns about stigmatization, sexual and romantic relationships and sexual freedom. The medical concerns of the ethics of PrEP may take precedence over the social concerns, but there is a growing body of literature that already addresses the medical concerns. Much less attention has been given to the social concerns of the ethics of PrEP, and in this article, I aim to fill this gap in the literature. Therefore, I focus on the often-overlooked social dimension of the ethics of PrEP to help understand the connection between the risks, relationships and communities of MSM using PrEP as HIV prevention. (shrink)