Hunter Smith

Current US military international research protocols involving human subjects are reviewed, approved, and overseen by both US and regulatory bodies. In some cases host nation research partners are disadvantaged due to slower processing times and redundant protocol reviews when competing for opportunities to conduct clinical trials. This article considers international legal and regulatory tensions between protecting host nations’ patient‐subjects and supporting host nation researchers’ ability to conduct phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials in support of important military and global health objectives.

Military leaders must support health care and research to protect the health and readiness of their forces. Part of this effort entails conducting human subjects research to address current and emerging international health threats. The military is also attentive to the national security interests associated with global health, such as protection from widespread disruption due to disasters and epidemics. While military leaders’ global health research objectives relate to the military's strategic goals, including force health protection and national security, it is only through longstanding partnerships with partner nations in several world regions that much of the relevant research is possible. Yet military priorities may differ starkly from those of the collaborating partner nations, raising concerns about the potential for exploitation in global health partnerships. However, in spite of differences in overall strategic priorities, a convergence of stakeholder interests allows for appropriate alignment in the choice of clinical research activities at global health sites supported by the military. These complex collaborative research arrangements depend on negotiating and navigating the selection of research goals and activities to ensure fairness and balancing of priorities among partners, thereby maintaining research infrastructure and capacity. Leaders of military institutions and partner nations must attend to the need for this sustained effort to balance priorities to ensure equity and successful maintenance of these essential relationships.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced us to reconsider our interactions with the world around us, shifting how we navigate public and private spaces every day. Most people in the United States previously thought nothing of touching railings or doorknobs, going to school or work while ill, or attending crowded events. Along with new health interventions and institutional practices, daily behaviors aimed at infection control, such as routine hand washing and wearing face masks when symptomatic, protected our communities from COVID-19. Many new interventions and practices are here to stay, but it is unclear which personal behaviors to protect against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases we should continue. Intuitively plausible ethical arguments support individuals taking reasonable measures to avoid causing or propagating harm to other members of the community. As such, by failing to adopt easily implementable preventive behaviors, we live ethically suboptimal lives and violate our social contract to one another. As the world transitions from epidemic to endemic COVID-19, applying the lessons learned from the pandemic is crucial to mitigating old and new infectious disease threats. Along with the role of public health agencies to organize and communicate about communicable diseases, clinicians and public health workers have critical roles in establishing social norms for behaviors that prevent the spread of infectious diseases, given their professional responsibilities and statuses as trusted authority figures.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued its first approval of an oral contraceptive medication for access without a clinician’s prescription. One might expect this will lead to fewer people seeking to terminate unplanned pregnancies, including in states that imposed severe restrictions on abortion care following the Supreme Court’s reversal on abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Despite the clear potential health benefits, increased accessibility of oral contraceptives offers no real solution to ongoing threats to patients’ reproductive health and moral rights created by post-Dobbs abortion restrictions. To secure their patients’ reproductive health and well-being, clinicians must work to maximize the benefits of OTC oral contraceptives without relenting in their advocacy for safe and accessible abortion care.

Shared decision-making is a well-recognized model to guide decision-making in medical care. However, the shared decision-making concept can become exceedingly complex in adolescent patients with varying degrees of autonomy who have most of their medical decisions made by their parents or legal guardians. The complexity increases further in ethically difficult situations such as terminal illness. In contrast to the typical patient-physician dyad, shared decision-making in adolescents requires a decision-making triad that also includes the parents or guardians. The multifactorial nature of these cases can overwhelm treatment teams, with minimal guidance on how to best approach the patient–parents–physician dynamic in an ethically appropriate manner. Estimated time left to live is the paramount ethical consideration for such cases with respect to shared decision-making. This paper offers a sliding scale to serve as a grounding reference for clinicians who care for terminally ill adolescents and hospital ethics committee members for initiating and guiding the ethical discussion for these patients. This paper also elucidates several other ethically salient features inherent to many of these cases, including quality of life, treatability of disease, cultural influences, among others. Yet how each of these variables is weighed is dependent upon the specific circumstances of each individual case. Ultimately, shared decision-making in adolescent patients with terminal illnesses must be a collaborative and ongoing process that thoughtfully weighs the values and ethical responsibilities of the patient, parents, and physician to ideally reconcile differences and come to a consensus on the best management option for each individual patient.

One of the more polarizing policies proposed to alleviate the organ shortage is financial payment of donors in return for organs. A priori and empirical investigation concludes that such systems are ethically inadequate. A new methodological approach towards policy formation and implementation is proposed which places ethical concerns at its core. From a hypothetical secular origin, the optimal ethical policy structure concerning organ donation is derived. However, when applied universally, it does not yield ideal results for every culture and society due to region-specific variation. Since religion holds significant influence in the organ donation debate, three religions-Catholicism, Islam, and Shinto-were examined in order to illustrate this variation. Although secular ethical concerns should rest at the core of policy construction, certain region-specific contexts require cultural and religious competence and necessitate the adjustment of the optimal template policy accordingly to yield the best moral and practical results.