James Wilson

Cunningham and Kavic [1] rightly note that standard accounts of surgical complications—ours included—have focused on postoperative events [2, 3]. As they point out, this postoperative focus leaves open the question of how we should categorize adverse intraoperative events. They argue that we should distinguish between two types of adverse intraoperative events: those that introduce additional risk of postoperative complications and those that do not. On their account, adverse intraoperative events that introduce additional risk of postoperative complications are intraoperative complications, whereas those that do not are simple errors. Cunningham and Kavic say little about why we might want to make this distinction. We take it that the underlying purpose is to focus attention on the importance of diligence in surgical performance. Gawande defines diligence as ‘‘the necessity of giving sufficient attention to detail to avoid error and prevail against obstacles’’ [4, p. 8]. It is clear that diligence in surgery requires us to attend not just to those adverse intraoperative events that lead to postoperative complications but also to adverse intraoperative events that increase the risk of postoperative complications. We wholeheartedly agree about the importance of diligence in surgery, both in the intraoperative and the..

In the book Valuing Health, Daniel Hausman sets out a normative framework for assessing social policy, which he calls restricted consequentialism. For the restricted consequentialist, government policy-making not only is, but ought to be, largely siloed in individual government departments. Each department has its own goal linked to a fundamental public value, which it should pursue in a maximizing way. I argue that, first, Hausman’s argument appears to be internally inconsistent: his case for thinking that health policy should default to a form of maximization is plausible only if a much narrower vision of the goals of policy is adopted than Hausman thinks appropriate in the case of education. Secondly, it turns out that none of Hausman’s analysis helps us with the crucial question of how maximization should be constrained by other values—a question that even on Hausman’s account looks to be crucial, and that will be even more important if adopt a broader perspective on the purposes of health policy than Hausman allows.

Research involving human subjects is much more stringently regulated than many other nonresearch activities that appear to be at least as risky. A number of prominent figures now argue that research is overregulated. We argue that the reasons typically offered to justify the present system of research regulation fail to show that research should be subject to more stringent regulation than other equally risky activities. However, there are three often overlooked reasons for thinking that research should be treated as a special case. First, research typically involves the imposition of risk on people who do not benefit from this risk imposition. Second, research depends on public trust. Third, the complexity of the moral decision making required favors ethics committees as a regulative solution for research.

This article introduces a symposium on Daniel Hausman’s Valuing Health: Well-Being, Suffering and Freedom. The symposium contains papers by Elselijn Kingma, Adam Oliver, Anna Alexandrova, Erik Nord, Alex Voorhoeve and James Wilson, with replies by Daniel Hausman. In Valuing Health, Hausman argues that, despite apparently measuring health, projects such as the Global Burden of Disease Study in fact measure judgments about the value of health. Once this has been clarified, the key question is how the value of health should be measured. Hausman argues that existing instruments measure the private value of health, that is, health’s ‘contribution to whatever the individual cares about or should care about’, whereas what should be measured for resource allocation purposes is the public value of health, that is, the value health should be accorded from the perspective of the liberal state. Hausman argues that the public value of health should be measured by the extent to which suffering and activity limitations are relieved. Each commentator engages with a different aspect of Hausman’s argument.

Verbal autopsy presents the opportunity to understand the disease burden in many low-income countries where vital registration systems are underdeveloped and most deaths occur in the community. Advances in technology have led to the development of software that can provide probable cause of death information in real time, and research considering the ethical implications of these advances is necessary to inform policy. Our research explores these ethical issues in rural Nepal using a public health ethics framework. We considered the burdens and benefits of VA and giving cause of death information to families of the deceased through qualitative research with VA interviewers, community members, national policy stakeholders and international academics. Burdens can be experienced differently, and it is important to balance the emotional burden of VA with utilization of the data to inform planning and increased access to health services. The training, support and supervision of VA interviewers should be prioritized if VA is taken to scale. Initial and ongoing community engagement is recommended in addition to engaging ethical, legal, health and policy personnel in developing protocols and systems. Integrating rigorous research while cautiously moving forward is recommended to ensure systems and responses to concerns are relevant to contexts.

Fair allocation of scarce healthcare resources has been much studied within philosophy and bioethics, but analysis has focused on a narrow range of cases. The Covid-19 pandemic provided significant new challenges, making powerfully visible the extent to which health systems can be fragile, and how scarcities within crucial elements of interlinked care pathways can lead to cascading failures. Health system resilience, while previously a key topic in global health, can now be seen to be a vital concern in high-income countries too. Unfortunately, mainstream philosophical approaches to the ethics of rationing and prioritisation provide little guidance for these new problems of scarcity. Indeed, the cascading failures were arguably exacerbated by earlier attempts to make health systems leaner and more efficient. This paper argues that health systems should move from simple and atomistic approaches to measuring effectiveness to approaches that are holistic both in focusing on performance at the level of the health system as a whole, and also in incorporating a wider range of ethical concerns in thinking about what makes a health system good.

This paper examines the ethical issues that arise when healthcare providers act as gatekeepers to research involving vulnerable populations. Traumatised refugees serve as an example of this subset of research participants. Highlighting the particular vulnerabilities of this group, we argue that specific ethical considerations are required that go beyond the conventional research approaches. While gatekeeping responds to some of those vulnerabilities, it risks wronging through unwarranted paternalism. Instead, we will propose that a relational ethics of justice and care serves as a more appropriate framework for responding to the challenges of research involving traumatised refugees. Specifically, such a framework allows us to reflect more deeply on the role of the gatekeeper. In conclusion, we recommend that clinicians and researchers collaborate with survivors’ advisory groups in the development of specific research ethical guidelines.