Often lurking below the surface of many clinical ethical issues are questions regarding background metaphysical, epistemological, meta-ethical, and political beliefs. In this issue, authors critically examine the effects of background beliefs on conscientious objection, explore ethical issues through the lenses of particular theoretical approaches like pragmatism and intersectional theory, rigorously explore the basic concepts at play within the patient safety movement, offer new theoretical approaches to old problems involving decision making for patients with dementia, explicate and explore the problems and (...) promises of machine learning in medicine, and offer us a non-rights-based argument for the just distribution of healthcare resources. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that addressing the medical needs of older persons warrants expanding the array of insured services as described by the Canada Health Act to include home care. The growing importance of chronic care supports my call for federally regulated home care services as the nature of disease management has changed significantly in the last decades. In addition, if the values of equity, fairness and solidarity, which are the keystone values of the CHA, are to be upheld (...) within the current social and demographic context, then Canada’s health care system should adapt accordingly. I focus my argument on the services provided to older persons for two main reasons. First, the changing nature of disease management is best seen in this population. If it is to be successfully argued that the transformations in medicine warrant an expansion of insured services covered by the CHA, it will be best illustrated by looking at the needs of older persons. Second, with the demographic shift looming large in the policy agenda, an exploration of this issue is not only crucial but timely. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 5, June 2020, Page 64-66.

Norman Daniels' and James Sabin's theory of “accountability for reasonableness” (A4R) is a much discussed account of due process for decision-making on health care priority setting. Central to the theory is the acceptance that people may justifiably disagree on what reasons it is relevant to consider when priorities are made, but that there is a core set of reasons, that all centre on fairness, on which there will be no disagreement. A4R is designed as an institutional decision process which will (...) ensure that only those reasons which everybody will agree are relevant and appropriate form part of decision-making. The argument which we will put forward in this paper questions whether it is a simple matter to delineate the core set of reasons and claims that it is a potential problem in A4R that it does not provide an indication of the exact content of this process. The paper first briefly outlines the content of A4R. It is argued that disagreement on what services should be high priorities cannot be resolved solely with a reference to “due process.” In order to retain consistency over time, decision-makers are required to agree and articulate what reasons qualify as relevant and how conflicting reasons are to be balanced in the course of the process. The second and main part of the paper then considers how the reason of “solidarity” can be handled within the A4R framework, and it is shown that deciding whether solidarity should be admitted to the core set of allowable reasons is not a simple matter. (shrink)

Whether it is fair to use personal responsibility of patients for their own health as a rationing criterion in healthcare is a controversial matter. A host of difficulties are associated with the concept of personal responsibility in the field of medicine. These include, in particular, theoretical considerations of justice and such practical issues as multiple causal factors in medicine and freedom of health behaviour. In the article, personal responsibility is evaluated from the perspective of several theories of justice. It is (...) argued that in a healthcare system based on both equality of opportunity and solidarity, responsible health behaviour can—in principle—be justifiably expected. While the practical problems associated with personal responsibility are important, they do not warrant the common knee-jerk refusal to think more deeply about responsibility for health as a means of allocating healthcare resources. In conclusion, the possibility of introducing personal responsibility as a fair rationing criterion is briefly sketched. (shrink)

Pratt et al. (2020) tackle a seeming lack of consensus about the ethical goals of community engagement (CE) in global health research. Their paper “identifies an additional or complementary role fo...