Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"John Coggon argues that the important question for analysts in the fields of public health law and ethics is 'what makes health public?' He offers a conceptual and analytic scrutiny of the salient issues raised by this question, outlines the concepts entailed in, or denoted by, the term 'public health' and argues why and how normative analyses in public health are inquiries in political theory. The arguments expose and explain the political claims inherent in key works in public health ethics. Coggon then develops and defends a particular understanding of political liberalism, describing its implications for critical study of public health policies and practices. Covering important works from legal, moral, and political theory, public health, public health law and ethics, and bioethics, this is a foundational text for scholars, practitioners and policy bodies interested in freedoms, rights and responsibilities relating to health\"-- Provided by publisher.

Mandatory vaccination, including for COVID-19, can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for non-compliance are proportionate. I describe an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination. Penalties or costs could include withholding of benefits, imposition of fines, provision of community service or loss of freedoms. I argue that under conditions of risk or perceived risk of a novel vaccination, a system of payment for risk in vaccination may be superior. I defend a payment model against various objections, including that it constitutes coercion and undermines solidarity. I argue that payment can be in cash or in kind, and opportunity for altruistic vaccinations can be preserved by offering people who have been vaccinated the opportunity to donate any cash payment back to the health service.

Few novel or emerging infectious diseases have posed such vital ethical challenges so quickly and dramatically as the novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern and recently classified Covid‐19 as a worldwide pandemic. As of this writing, the epidemic has not yet peaked in the United States, but community transmission is widespread. President Trump declared a national emergency as fifty governors declared state emergencies. In the coming weeks, hospitals will become overrun, stretched to their capacities. When the health system becomes stretched beyond capacity, how can we ethically allocate scarce health goods and services? How can we ensure that marginalized populations can access the care they need? What ethical duties do we owe to vulnerable people separated from their families and communities? And how do we ethically and legally balance public health with civil liberties?

Canada is in the forefront of thinking about the unique and complex issues of contemporary public health ethics. However, an inordinate focus on the urgent issues of emergency preparedness in pandemic and reliance on bioethical analysis steeped in the autonomy and individual rights tradition of health care and research do not serve adequately as the basis for an ethic of public health with its focus on populations, communities and the common good. This paper describes some concerns regarding the focus on pandemic ethics in isolation from public health ethics; identifies inadequacies in the dominant individualistic ethics framework; and summarizes nascent work on the concepts of relational autonomy, relational social justice and relational solidarity that can inform a re-visioning of public health ethics. While there is still much work to be done to further refine these principles, they can help to reclaim and centre the common and collective good at risk in pandemic and other emergency situations. Minimally, these principles require a policymaking process that is truly transparent, fair and inclusive; is sensitive and responsive to the workings of systemic inequalities; and requires public recognition of the fact that we enter any crisis with varying degrees of inequity. Public policy response to crisis must not forseeably increase existing inequities. Le Canada est à l'avant-garde de la pensée contemporaine sur les enjeux complexes et particuliers de l'éthique en santé publique. Cependant, une attention démesurée aux problèmes urgents de la préparation antipandémique et une analyse bioéthique ancrée dans les traditions d'autonomie et de droits individuels dans les soins de santé et la recherche en santé ne constituent pas des bases assez solides pour une éthique de la santé publique axée sur les populations, les communautés et le bien commun. Nous présentons ici certains problèmes qu'il peut y avoir à étudier l'éthique des interventions en cas de pandémie en la séparant de l'éthique en santé publique; nous cernons les lacunes du cadre éthique individualiste dominant; et nous résumons les travaux naissants sur les concepts d'autonomie relationnelle, de justice sociale relationnelle et de solidarité relationnelle qui peuvent étayer une nouvelle vision d'avenir pour l'éthique en santé publique. Il y a encore beaucoup de travail à faire pour peaufiner ces principes, mais ils peuvent déjà contribuer à revaloriser et à remettre au centre de nos préoccupations le bien commun et collectif fragilisé durant les pandémies et autres situations d'urgence. À tout le moins, ces principes nécessitent un processus décisionnel vraiment transparent, équitable et inclusif, un processus sensible et réceptif aux rouages des inégalités systémiques, et qui reconnaisse publiquement qu'au début de chaque crise il existe déjà des inégalités à divers degrés. Les politiques publiques élaborées en réponse aux crises doivent se garder de creuser ces inégalités.

\"Public health ethics is a discipline concerned with the health of the public or a population as a whole, rather than focusing on the individual. This book introduces a number of this new field's central concepts and explores the key and controversial issues arising. Topics covered include the nature of public health ethics, the concepts of disease and prevention, risk and precaution, health inequalities and justice, screening, vaccination and disease control, smoking and issues relating to the environment and public health. With insightful contributions from leading experts, Public Health Ethics presents thought-provoking reviews of these topics, at the same time as encouraging and identifying areas for future discussion in this emerging discipline. This is a valuable addition to the library of anyone working in the fields of public health, health policy, ethics, philosophy and social science\"-- Provided by publisher.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led a number of countries to introduce restrictive ‘lockdown’ policies on their citizens in order to control infection spread. Immunity passports have been proposed as a way of easing the harms of such policies, and could be used in conjunction with other strategies for infection control. These passports would permit those who test positive for COVID-19 antibodies to return to some of their normal behaviours, such as travelling more freely and returning to work. The introduction of immunity passports raises a number of practical and ethical challenges. In this paper, we seek to review the challenges relating to various practical considerations, fairness issues, the risk to social cooperation and the impact on people’s civil liberties. We make tentative recommendations for the ethical introduction of immunity passports.

\" Holland provides a deft philosophical guide to a wide range of complex issues in the collection, storage and use of public health data. His overarching argument, that concerns about informational privacy have gone too far, is well-developed; researchers, regulators and ethicists should all reflect on it\"--Back cover.

In their viewpoint, Schmit and colleagues thoughtfully discuss tribal public authority, as well as barriers and facilitators to the responsible use of data generated by or collected from members of sovereign American Indian and Alaska Native Nations. Key topics not covered by the authors that warrant discussion include tribal public health workforce development, data systems infrastructure, and federal facilitation of tribal self-governance programs. These additional topics will better contextualize the ethical, legal, and social issues specific to American Indian and Alaska Native public health practice.