Andrew Dawson

This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical issues associated with population screening from the perspective of public health. Key principles and frameworks for ethical analysis are explained and discussed, including assessment of individual and collective interests in public health. Ethical dimensions of population screening are examined with close attention to complex overlapping ethical tensions. Section one briefly describes what is meant by ‘screening’ and reviews criteria for introducing screening programmes, section two presents examples of programmes and section three presents and critiques ethical issues arising from screening.

There is a large literature exploring the concept of ‘health promotion’. However, the meaning of the term remains unclear and contested. This is for at least two reasons. First, any definition of ‘health promotion’ is going to have to outline and defend an account of the notoriously controversial concept of ‘health’, and then suggest how (and why) we should promote it. Second, health promotion clearly has some overlap with ‘public health’, but it is far from clear how they are related. Is health promotion part of public health or is health promotion a radically different type of activity from public health? Answering this question requires engaging with tricky professional as well as contentious conceptual issues. Some advocates of health promotion talk as though public health is problematic: seen as medical, physiological in focus and reductionist in approach, whereas health promotion, on this view, is focused on the whole person in a social environment. However, to an outsider this looks more like an attempt to artificially (and rather crudely) define and protect professional boundaries, rather than a contribution to conceptual analysis. There seems no good reason why public health cannot take into account the role of social, political, economic and cultural factors and their impact on health. Indeed, much work in public health does precisely this, and uses a wide range of methodologies drawn from non-medical disciplines such as geography, sociology and psychology, not just epidemiology. It seems much more sensible to see health promotion as being one vitally important aspect of the work of public health, rather than something markedly distinct. We will assume here that this is the case and focus instead on the first issue: what is health promotion?

Raanan Gillon is a noted defender of the four principles approach to healthcare ethics. His general position has always been that these principles are to be considered to be both universal and prima facie in nature. In recent work, however, he has made two claims that seem to present difficulties for this view. His first claim is that one of these four principles, respect for autonomy, has a special position in relation to the others: he holds that it is first among equals. We argue that this claim makes little sense if the principles are to retain their prima facie nature. His second claim is that cultural variation can play an independent normative role in the construction of our moral judgments. This, he argues, enables us to occupy a middle ground between what he sees as the twin pitfalls of moral relativism and moral imperialism. We argue that there is no such middle ground, and while Gillon ultimately seems committed to relativism, it is some form of moral imperialism that will provide the only satisfactory construal of the four principles as prima facie universal moral principles.

The obligations of organisations associated with policy formation and implementation of international mass public health programmes are explored. Lines of responsibility are considered to become unclear because of the large number of agencies associated with such programmes. A separation of the relevant obligations among the bodies responsible for the formulation and those responsible for the implementation of the policies is suggested. The continuing oral polio vaccine campaign against poliomyelitis in India is used to illustrate the general argument. Although the aim of the programme is legitimate and laudable, unnecessary harm is currently being caused to some children as a result of elements of the policy and this should be rectified immediately. Such mass programmes should take care to ensure that people are not unnecessarily sacrificed in the drive to attain the desirable ends of the policy.

Both the recent 'Warner' review of the UK research ethics committee (REC) system and the subsequent consultation document produced by the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) emphasize the need to distinguish 'research' from what might be termed 'non-research'. This is to be determined through a process of filtering or 'triage', the intention being that RECs will avoid considering proposals with 'no material ethical issues'. In this paper we argue that trying to distinguish 'true' research from other projects is counterproductive, misleading and potentially unethical. Our case is built around three assertions: (1) the distinction between research and non-research is imprecise; (2) both medical research and non-research can generate similar ethical issues; and (3) projects should be judged according to what they involve, not how they are labelled

The Report of the Ad Hoc Adivisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees has resulted in a strange mixture of the timid, the revolutionary, and the bizarre.The Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees is a curious document.1 The remit of the review was focused on the workings and effectiveness of NHS research ethics committees and the multicentre committees ). The Group was primarily set up in response to a series of complaints from medical researchers about the new research governance regime in the UK as a result of the Clinical Trials Directive2 and the Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees.3 The opportunity was also taken to consider the role of research ethics committees in a wider context, and take account of recent developments in relation to the ethics review of social care research,4 student projects,5 as well as recent legislation such as the Human Tissue Act,6 and the Mental Capacity Act.7 However, the resulting report is a strange mixture of the timid, the revolutionary, and the bizarre.A good example of the report’s timidity is its reluctance to propose fundamental change to the process of review or seriously limit the type of research that requires REC review. To its credit AHAG does suggest that some research ‘especially surveys and many studies on NHS staff, could normally be conducted safely without a requirement for REC review’.1 This is, of course, to be welcomed. However, the report ultimately seems dismissive of the general complaint from researchers that the current process is inappropriately uniform. For example, in section 3.2, it is argued that the ‘common perception that the NHS REC system is dominated …