Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 172-174.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 212-214.

This article starts with a case outlining ethical challenges encountered in participatory action research (PAR) on vaccine hesitancy in rural India during Covid-19. Community researchers were recruited by a not-for-profit organisation, with the aim of both discovering the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and encouraging take-up. This raised issues about the roles and responsibilities of local researchers in their own communities, where they might be blamed for adverse reactions to vaccination. They and their mentor struggled with balancing societal protection against individual (...) rights to make choices. These themes are explored in two commentaries discussing the difficulties in balancing ethics in public health (prioritising societal benefits), social research (protecting participants from harm and respecting their rights not to be involved) and participatory research practices (maximising democratic participation and decision-making). As discussed in the first commentary, often these cohere, but tensions can arise. The second commentary also raises the issue of epistemic justice, questioning the extent to which the villagers could have a say in the design, implementation and interpretation of the research, and the dangers of not hearing the voices and arguments of people who reject vaccination. The case and commentaries highlight the complexities of PAR and additional challenges in a public health context. (shrink)

This study argues against the expansive approach to the WHO reform, according to which to be a better global health leader, WHO should do more, be given more power and financial resources, have more operational capacities, and have more teeth by introducing more coercive monitoring and compliance mechanisms to its IHR. The expansive approach is a political problem, whose root cause lies in ethics: WHO’s political overambition is grounded on WHO’s lack of conceptual clarity on what good leadership means and (...) what health (as a human right) means. This study presents this ethical analysis by putting forth an alternative: the humble approach to the WHO reform. It argues that to be a better leader, WHO should do much less and have a much narrower mandate. More specifically, WHO should focus exclusively on coordination efforts, by ensuring truthful, evidence-based, consistent, and timely shared communications regarding PHEIC among WHO member-states and other global health stakeholders, if the organization desires to be a real global health leader whose authority the international community respects and whose guidance people trust. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 150-152.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 174-177.

Until now, it has mostly been assumed that the kind of health the human right to health is concerned with is clearly understood and universal. Here, I question this assumption and offer an explicitly political and pluralistic account of health that is designed to help guide international and cross-cultural interventions on behalf of health. In order to be a useful mechanism of accountability, the human right to health needs an enforceable minimum standard of health by which to judge situations and (...) to determine if a violation of rights has occurred, but due to its international nature, it also needs to admit a large degree of cultural flexibility. With the account of health that I provide, I hope to clarify what makes up that minimum standard in a way that avoids unjustified parochial bias, while not being so permissive as to undermine the political force of a universal human right. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 142-144.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 103-106.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 106-109.