Marcel Verweij

Emerging infectious diseases such as Ebola, Hendra, SARS, West Nile, Hepatitis E and avian influenza have led to a renewed recognition of how diseases in human beings, wildlife and livestock are interlinked. The changing prevalence and spread of such infections are largely determined by human activities and changes in environment and climate—where the latter are often also caused by human activities. Since the beginning of the 21st century, these insights have been brought together under the heading of OneHealth—a concept that calls for interdisciplinary collaboration between various sciences as well as professional practices to promote and protect the health of human and non-human animals and the natural environment. Just as insights from public health have led to a broadened focus for health policy and medical care, from treating individual patients to protecting and promoting population health, OneHealth calls for an even broader perspective, including a concern for the environment and animals, and for social-cultural factors that affect human, animal and environmental health. OneHealth not only covers collaborative work to understand and control zoonotic diseases, but also other ways in which interactions between animals, plants and humans may positively or negatively impact on each other’s health. Thus, studies in veterinary medicine and environmental sciences may lead to new insights in human medicine, and vice versa. Acknowledgment of the links between environmental, animal and social health is of course not a novel insight. Hippocrates already pointed to the importance of a clean environment as a requirement for good health; the early public health movements emphasized hygienic living conditions including good-quality housing, sewage systems and clean air and water; and the founders of modern medicine such as William Osler and Rudolf Virchow promoted …

BACKGROUND: The availability of costly safety measures against transfusion-transmissible infections forces Western countries to confront difficult ethical questions. How to decide about implementing such measures? When are such decisions justified? As a preliminary to addressing these questions, we assessed which concerns shape actual donor blood safety policymaking in five Western countries. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Our qualitative study involved determining which issues had been discussed in advisory committee meetings and capturing these issues in general categories. Appropriate documents were identified in collaboration with local decision-making experts in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The introduction of hepatitis B virus nucleic acid testing and selected measures against variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, West Nile virus, and Q-fever were chosen as cases representing decision-making on safety measures with high costs and low or uncertain added safety. RESULTS: A broad inventory of concerns was established, including: 1) nine categories of advantages and disadvantages of candidate safety policies; 2) six kinds of difficulties in assessing risks and forecasting the effects of safety policies; 3) 13 decision-making principles; and 4) six kinds of practical barriers hampering the translation of candidate policies into decisions. CONCLUSION: Blood safety policymaking involves a wide variety of competing concerns, and approaches to reconcile these considerations are themselves contested. Developing a systematic decision-making approach requires ethical reflection on, among others, reasonable costs of safety and the value of transparency in public policy.

Preventive medicine is sometimes criticised as it contributes to medicalization of normal life. The concept ‘medicalization’ has been introduced by Zola to refer to processes in which the labels ‘healthy’ and ‘ill’ are made relevant for more and more aspects of human life. If preventive medicine contributes to medicalization, would that be morally problematic? My thesis is that such a contribution is indeed morally problematic. The concept is sometimes used to express moral intuitions regarding the practice of prevention and health promotion. Through analysis of these intuitions as well as some other moral concerns, I give an explication of the moral problems of medicalization within the context of preventive medicine.

Vaccination involves priming the immune system with an antigenic agent that mimics a virus or bacterium, which results in immunity against the “real” microorganism. Collective vaccination policies have played an important role in the control of infectious disease worldwide. They can serve the utilitarian aim to protect public health – hence welfare – and also promote fairness: making essential vaccines accessible to all members of the public. Yet as more and more vaccines are developed, societies face the question of how far to go in expanding public programs. Decisions about adopting new vaccines in the program will require combining scientific evidence about the disease and the vaccine, with value judgments about, for example, the extent to which a disease poses a threat to public health. It makes sense to promote transparency of such deliberations because one cannot expect that citizens simply accept every government vaccination policy