In this paper, we develop an analysis of the structure and content of loneliness. We argue that this is an emotion of absence-an affective state in which certain social goods are regarded as out of reach for the subject of experience. By surveying the range of social goods that appear to be missing from the lonely person's perspective, we see what it is that can make this emotional condition so subjectively awful for those who undergo it, including the profound sense (...) of being unable to realise oneself, in collaboration with others. (shrink)

This essay discusses and weaves together three interrelated topics: loneliness as a neglected bioethics problem, solidarity as one potential solution to loneliness, and the Israeli‐Palestinian Conflict as a neglected bioethics problem in which loneliness is stark. I first present and define various kinds of loneliness, focusing on ethical loneliness, defined as suffering injustice without a proper repair process. I next discuss current health conditions in Gaza, focusing on healthcare providers who, according to the UN, are being intentionally targeted by Israel. (...) I explain how the various kinds of loneliness are reflected among people in Gaza. I lastly relate together the notions of solidarity, responsibility and personal autonomy, arguing that bioethicists and healthcare providers have a duty to support the people in Gaza, stemming from solidarity and an extended responsibility perspective. (shrink)

Public health ethics, like the field of public health it addresses, traditionally has focused more on practice and particular cases than on theory, with the result that some concepts, methods, and boundaries remain largely undefined. This paper attempts to provide a rough conceptual map of the terrain of public health ethics. We begin by briefly defining public health and identifying general features of the field that are particularly relevant for a discussion of public health ethics.Public health is primarily concerned with (...) the health of the entire population, rather than the health of individuals. Its features include an emphasis on the promotion of health and the prevention of disease and disability; the collection and use of epidemiological data, population surveillance, and other forms of empirical quantitative assessment; a recognition of the multidimensional nature of the determinants of health; and a focus on the complex interactions of many factors—biological, behavioral, social, and environmental—in developing effective interventions. (shrink)

This article poses an invitation for bioethicists to engage with loneliness as a bioethics and public health concern. I argue that loneliness is a relevant issue for bioethicists for three main reasons: it causes ill‐health; particularly in the age of Covid‐19, it is becoming prominent on the clinical and public health agenda, affecting millions worldwide; and it engenders several ethical and philosophical questions as a social determinant of health with a rich conceptual background. In what follows I first review the (...) link between loneliness and ill‐health and argue that it should concern bioethicists because of this link. I also demonstrate how pertinent the issue of loneliness is being considered nowadays, and mark this as another reason for bioethicists to become engaged. I then move on to define loneliness and its various forms, drawing from modern and contemporary philosophers. The way we choose to cope with the pandemic of loneliness depends in part on its theoretical underpinnings, as well as its empirical scope. Theory thus combines with empirical data in order to devise and implement a rational public health policy, necessitating the kind of interdisciplinary approach that is the bedrock of bioethics. I conclude by suggesting future areas of research and recommendations. (shrink)

Drawing on a conception of people as ‘ecological subjects’, creatures situated in specific social relations, locations, and material environments, I want to emphasize the importance of place and place‐making for basing, demonstrating, and forging future solidarity. Solidarity, as I will define it here, involves reaching out through moral imagination and responsive action across social and/or geographic distance and asymmetry to assist other people who are vulnerable, and to advance justice. Contained in the practice of solidarity are two core ‘enacted commitments’, (...) first, to engaging our moral imaginations and recognizing others in need and, second, to responsive action. Recognizing the suffering of displacement and responding through place‐making should follow from even the most simplistic understanding of people as ‘implaced’. Recognition, furthermore, that places are created and sustained, transformed, or neglected in ways that foster or perpetuate inequities, including health inequities, generates responsibilities concerning place‐making. Place‐based interventions, on either count, should be principal and, indeed, prioritized ways of showing solidarity for the vulnerable and promoting justice. Where solidaristic relations do not prevail, place‐making can catalyze and nurture them, and over time advance justice. On the moral landscapes of bioethics, the terrain where care and health are or should be at the center of attention, an ethic of place and place‐making for those who have been displaced – patients, the elderly, urban populations, and asylum‐seekers, for instance – expresses and has rich potential for nurturing bonds of solidarity. (shrink)