Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Equity in global bioethics scholarship and practice: walking the talk, together
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Equity in global bioethics scholarship and practice: walking the talk, together
Do you wish to request the book?
Equity in global bioethics scholarship and practice: walking the talk, together
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Equity in global bioethics scholarship and practice: walking the talk, together
2024
Overview
Around 7% of the world population lives in HICs, 33% in MICs and 60% in LICs.5 Yet, relative to their proportion in terms of the global population, authors from HICs account for an outsize share of the bioethics literature,6 7 as well as in general medical research, global health research and medical education.8–10 The same pattern is found in those who participate in the WCB, especially when the WCB is located in a HIC. Participation rates at the 2022 WCB in Basel were HICs: 42%, MICs: 12% and LICs: 4%, that is, HICs shares were 7 times higher while MICs accounted for less than half their population share, and LICs for less than 1/10th (at the 2020 WCB/Philadelphia, which was held online due to Covid-10 rates were HIC: 42%, MIC: 12%, LIC: 10%, 2018/Bangalore, HIC: 36%, MIC: 32% LIC: 32%—ECRs were often captured separately and account for the remainder, where applicable, all data via IAB).11 People from HICs have far more access, presence and influence. Challenges from sub-Saharan African value-laden judgements on mental health disorders’ by Ugar and Malele13; the research article ‘Ethical Issues in Nipah Virus Control and Research: Reversing Decades of Neglect in Bioethics’ Johnson et al. 14 and the student essay ‘Patient autonomy in an East Asian cultural milieu: a critique of the individualism-collectivism model’ by Max Ying Hao Lim are all particularly important in this regard, as they can contribute to addressing inequities in the body of bioethics scholarship and to correcting epistemic (in)justices.15 8 13 16–18 Ugar and Malele discuss the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning for the diagnosis and prognosis of diseases, especially mental health disorders, in a global context. [...]a generic or universal design cannot be effective’.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics,BMJ Publishing Group LTD
