Nancy Jecker

This paper gives an ethical argument for temporarily waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines. It examines two proposals under discussion at the World Trade Organization : the India/South Africa proposal and the WTO Director General proposal. Section I explains the background leading up to the WTO debate. Section II rebuts ethical arguments for retaining current IP protections, which appeal to benefiting society by spurring innovation and protecting rightful ownership. It sets forth positive ethical arguments for a temporary waiver that appeal to standing in solidarity and holding companies accountable. After examining built-in exceptions to existing agreements and finding them inadequate, the paper replies to objections to a temporary waiver and concludes, in section III, that the ethical argument for temporarily waiving IP protection for COVID-19 vaccines is strong. There are no data in this work.

As average lifespans stretch to new lengths, how are human values impacted? Should our values change over the course of our ever-increasing lifespans? Nancy S. Jecker introduces a new concept, the life stage relativity of values, which holds that at different life stages, different ethical concerns should take center stage. For Jecker, the privileging of midlife values raises fundamental problems of fairness, and reveals large gaps in ethical principles and theories. Jecker introduces a new philosophical framework that reflects the life stage relativity of values and shows its relevance to practice and policy.

This paper argues that we can see our lives as a snapshot happening now or as a moving picture extending across time. These dual ways of seeing our lives inform how we conceive of the problem of age group justice. A snapshot view sees age group justice as an interpersonal problem between distinct age groups. A moving picture view sees age group justice as a first-person problem of prudential choice. This paper explores these different ways of thinking about age group justice and illustrates them using a principle of respect for human dignity, understood in terms of reasonable support for floor level central human capabilities at each stage of life. I argue that different frames are suitable for different kinds of decisions, and each provides a true, but partial, picture of aging and age group justice.

Is age discrimination ethically objectionable? One puzzle is that we sometimes assume that the target of both age discrimination and ageism must be older people, yet in poorer nations, older people are generally shown more respect. This article explores the ethical question. It looks first at ethical arguments favoring age discrimination toward younger people in low‐income, less industrialized countries of the global South, using sub‐Saharan Africa as an illustration. It contrasts these with arguments favoring age discrimination toward older people in high‐income, more industrialized countries of the global North, particularly the United States and United Kingdom. Finally, it considers what role, if any, differences in life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and prospects for healthy lives should play in the moral embrace of a particular view by a community. It argues that there can be reasons to favor different types of discrimination in different parts of the world.

Controlled human infection (CHI) studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy research participants to infectious agents to study early disease processes and evaluate interventions under controlled conditions with high efficiency. Although CHI studies expose participants to the risk of infection, they are designed to offer investigators unique advantages for studying the pathogenesis of infectious diseases and testing potential vaccines or treatments in humans. One of the central challenges facing investigators involves the fair selection of research subjects to participate in CHI studies. While there is widespread agreement that investigators have a duty to select research participants fairly, this principle also yields conflicting ethical imperatives, for example requiring investigators to both exclude potential participants with co‐morbidities since they face increased risks, but also to include them in order to ensure generalizability. In this paper we defend an account of fair subject selection that is tailored to the context of CHI studies. We identify the considerations of fairness that bear directly on selecting participants for CHI studies and provide investigators and members of IRBs and RECs with a principled way to navigate the conflicting imperatives to which these considerations give rise.

This paper describes a global pattern of declining academic freedom, often driven by powerful political interference with core functions of academic communities. It argues that countering threats to academic freedom requires doubling down on ethics, specifically standards of justice and fairness in pursuing knowledge and assigning warrant to beliefs. Using the example of the selection of a Qatari university to host the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics, the authors urge fairness towards diverse groups over time and efforts to counter injustices that conferences generate.

In this paper I argue that a narrow view of justice dominates the bioethics literature. I urge a broader view. As bioethicists, we often conceive of justice using a medical model. This model focuses attention at a particular point in time, namely, when someone who is already sick seeks access to scarce or expensive services. A medical model asks how we can fairly distribute those services. The broader view I endorse requires looking upstream, and asking how disease and suffering came about. In contrast to a medical model, a social model of justice considers how social determinants affect the health of a population. For example, social factors such as access to clean drinking water, education, safe workplaces, and police protection, profoundly affect risk for disease and early death. I examine one important social determinant of health, health care coverage, to show the limits of a medical model and the merits of a broader view.

In 2022, the International Association of Bioethics (IAB) announced that the 17th World Congress of Bioethics would be held in Doha, Qatar. In response to ethical concerns expressed about the Qatar selection, the IAB Board of Directors developed and posted to the IAB website a response using a Q&A format. In this Letter, we (the IAB President and Vice President) address concerns about the ethics of bioethics conferencing raised in a 2023 Letter to the Editor of Bioethics by Van der Graaf et al. We do not represent the Board of Directors, and this Letter expresses solely our own views.

In Ending Midlife Bias: New Values for Old Age, I argued that dignity can give practical guidance for patient care, especially dementia care.1 Using a capability-informed analysis, I detailed threats to central human capabilities that undermine dignity for people with dementia and provide practical suggestions for managing these threats in paradigm cases. In an article in this issue, Hojjat Soofi argues that a capability-informed account of dignity is exclusionary of people with dementia and does not translate into practical ethics guidance.2 Soofi maintains that people with intellectual impairment ‘might not be able to exercise (or even have access to)’ the capabilities in question (Soofi, p4).2 Focusing on Nussbaum’s capability view, Soofi cautions, it gives a narrow, blinkered assessment of what it means to live a full and flourishing human life. In this commentary, I argue that Soofi’s critique of the capability view hastily generalises from a narrow set of premises to expansive, unwarranted conclusions. Soofi’s first objection, that a capability view of dignity excludes people with dementia, is a sweeping and strong claim. In its support, Soofi cites dignity of the Kantian sort, which requires ‘cognitive competence to exercise rational agency,’ to argue that ‘if we want to include people with dementia in the circle of human beings …

Stigmatization and sharming of healthcare workers in Japan during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic reveal uniquely Japanese features. Seken, usually translated as ‘social appearance or appearance in the eyes of others,’ is a deep undercurrent woven into the fabric of Japanese life. It has led to providers who become ill with the SARS-CoV-2 virus feeling ashamed, while concealing their conditions from coworkers and public health officials. It also has led to healthcare providers being perceived as polluted and their children being told they were not welcome in schools. Although such experiences are not isolated to Japan and have appeared in other parts of the world, the cultural forces driving them in Japan are unique. Overcoming stigmatization and shaming of Japanese healthcare providers will require concerted efforts to understand cultural barriers and to view such practices as raising human rights issues affecting the safety and well-being of all.

While people are still alive, we owe them respect. Yet what, if anything, do we owe the newly dead? This question is an urgent practical concern for aged societies, because older people die at higher rates than any other age group. One novel way in which Japan, the frontrunner of aged societies, meets its need to accommodate high numbers of newly dead is itai hoteru or corpse hotels. Itai hoteru offer families a way to wait for space in over‐crowded crematoriums while affording an environment conducive to grieving. Drawing on conversations with itai hoteru employees, we delineate the values this contemporary death practice expresses and show how these values comprise part of the broader idea of a good death. A good death implies duties on both sides of death's divide: to both the dying and the newly dead.

This paper argues in support of the WHO’s proposal to forego COVID-19 booster shots until 10% of people in every country are fully vaccinated. The Ethical Argument section shows that we save the most lives and ensure the least amount of suffering by allocating doses first to unvaccinated people. It also argues that there is a duty to support decent lives and to promote health equity, which establish that refraining from boosters is a requirement of justice, not charity. The Replies to Objections section answers objections that appeal to pragmatism, nationalism, ownership, scientific advancement, self-interest, semantics and futility. The Conclusion section emphasizes that for now, wealthy nations should not boost vaccinated people’s immunity and should instead send doses to poorer nations where they are most urgently needed. No data was used in this study.

In the January edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Fujita and Tabuchi responded that we misunderstood the ‘facts’ in our previous article. Our article’s method was twofold. First, it appealed to normative analysis and publicly accessible materials, and second, it targeted a policy-making approach to public funding. We specifically did not focus on the Center for iPS Cell Research and Application or induced pluripotent stem stock projects. The Authors raised five criticisms, including transparency of our interpretation of public funding policy. We reply to these criticisms by clarifying facts, and demonstrating new data, and asking the Authors what qualifies as a ‘good fact’ in medical ethics. We note that in some cases, it might be possible to examine to what extent facts are ‘true’, while in other cases, ‘facts’ are laden with ‘values’, which cannot be confirmed or falsified with observation alone. The level of ‘good’ implicit in a fact is a challenging issue that goes well beyond science and makes metaethical assumptions about the relationships between facts and values more broadly.

Since the World Health Organization first declared the novel coronavirus a pandemic, diverse strategies have emerged to address it. This paper focuses on two leading strategies, elimination and mitigation, and examines their ethical basis. Elimination or ‘Zero-COVID’ dominates policies in Pacific Rim societies. It sets as a goal zero deaths and seeks to contain transmission using stringent short-term lockdowns, followed by strict find, test, trace and isolate methods. Mitigation, which dominates in the US and most European nations, sets targets for community transmission and lifts restrictions once targets are met. This approach takes calculated risks and regards a certain amount of disease and death as ethically justified. Section I examines different societal responses to risk that underlie these different policy approaches. Section II focuses on ethical arguments favouring Zero-COVID and raises health equity objections. Section III proposes a long-term strategy that balances the twin goals of promoting population health and health equity. There are no data available for this work.