Mark Tan

This article argues that environmental considerations fall within the scope of medical bioethics, and there are implications specific to medical education. It endorses the need to expand the scope and epistemology of contemporary medical bioethics discourse by including themes related to environmental considerations. Our discussion begins by providing a brief history of environmental bioethics. It then offers a critique of three specific health and environmental issues, namely technology, toxics, and consumption, and discusses how these issues are key to articulating moral considerations of human health and subsequently medicine and its teaching. Lastly, it explores criticisms of including environmental issues into the bioethical debate before providing suggestions of how environmental ethics can be included into the medical curriculum. This article concludes by suggesting theoretical possibilities for environmentally inclusive bioethics, such as reorienting bioethical discussions to its original environmental advocacy and supporting environmental bioethics as a competency in medical education.

Background Healthcare professionals face a myriad of ethical challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, there is limited literature examining the ethical challenges faced by HCPs in low- and medium-income countries. The research was designed to explore the ethical challenges experienced by HCPs in a Malaysian hospital setting during the pandemic. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted via video calls with 10 Malaysian HCPs across different clinical disciplines involved in managing patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infections. The calls were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic analysis with constant comparison across transcripts was carried out to identify categories and themes. Results Three main themes emerged. Firstly, there was deprioritisation of care for non-COVID-19 patients resulting from resource limitations. HCPs raised concerns that there was curtailed access to various healthcare services by non-COVID-19 patients. There was also a trade-off between protecting individual patient safety and public health interests. Secondly, patients were disempowered from decision-making; the decision to segregate suspected COVID-19 patients to high-risk areas without seeking patients’ approval may result in an increased risk of infection. Lastly, HCPs expressed internal conflicts when balancing the professional duty of care against concerns about contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to their family members. Conclusion The study highlighted ethical issues faced by HCPs in Malaysia during the pandemic. It underscores the need for clinical ethics consultation services in hospitals to navigate the various ethical dilemmas.

This article provides an argument against ethical subjectivism as a normative theory. It highlights how ethical subjectivism does not correspond with the phenomena of how we argue. Ethical subjectivism suggests that ethics is a matter of subjective preferences, but we do not usually enter into a serious debate on such matters. On the contrary, when we argue we believe that what we argue for is objectively true. This may pose a serious problem to an ethical subjectivist who holds that ethical conceptions are neither superior nor inferior to each other. The article also outlines the implications of the position of an ethical subjectivist and how they go against our deepest moral intuition that