C. Harrison

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx).

Neste artigo, discutimos a respeito das práticas baseadas em evidências no campo da saúde mental resgatando suas origens, agentes financiadores e políticas de implementação, bem como os efeitos deletérios que esta política produziu no campo da saúde mental. Embora a psicanálise e as psicoterapias dela baseadas tenham evidências como apontam muitas pesquisas clínicas, estas geralmente não são divulgadas e, quando aparecem nas mídias ou revistas de alto impacto, as críticas tendem a apontar falhas que, na maioria das vezes, não são diferentes das falhas encontradas em pesquisas com relação a práticas com evidências de eficácia, efetividade e eficiência já aceitas. Encontramos em nossa pesquisa que, dentro do campo da prática baseada em evidências, mais especificamente em saúde mental, há fortes indícios de uma política que tenta implementar a todo custo, por vezes de forma antiética, uma visão extremamente pobre tanto epistemologicamente quanto com relação à prática, priorizando determinados tratamentos que, como foi possível verificar, não são superiores a outras práticas ou, em alguns casos, nem mesmo ao efeito placebo. Por último, discutimos sobre o método da psicanálise e as razões pelas quais ela pode funcionar quando outros tratamentos costumam fracassar uma vez que desconsideram a possibilidade do inconsciente, tal qual descoberto e sustentado pela teoria e clínica psicanalíticas.

A question increasingly arising in jurisdictions that permit assisted dying concerns the possibility of extending the rules for competent adults to allow doctors to help children or adults with impaired capacity to die. In a previous briefing, we drew attention to the Dutch “Groningen protocol”,1 which set out five criteria for the provision of euthanasia to incurably ill babies. Public debate on the protocol in 2005 forced the Dutch government to confront the issue of suffering in babies with incurable conditions. Euthanasia for adults has been legal in Holland since 2001, but providing assisted dying to children under the age of 12 years was prohibited. Despite this, child euthanasia was reportedly taking place, but only a few cases were reported under the rules regulating adult-assisted deaths. It was estimated that each year, at least 15 seriously ill babies were illegally helped to die with their parents’ consent. The Groningen University Medical Centre stated that it had begun reporting cases of euthanasia in babies with spina bifida in 2002.2 As a result, a Dutch committee was established to implement the Groningen protocol and formally regulate euthanasia in young children. It began work in March 2006. This made Holland the first country to permit child euthanasia. Opponents of euthanasia saw the establishment of the committee as proof of a “slippery slope”, whereas supporters saw it as bringing greater openness to a practice that previously occurred in secret.Belgium legalised euthanasia in May 2002. It can legally be provided only to competent adult patients with untreatable medical conditions that entail unbearable physical suffering or mental agony. Patients must make voluntary, well-considered and repeated requests for their lives to be ended. This rule was challenged in February 2006 by …

The office of the United nations high commissioner for human rights (OHCHR): serious human rights abuses against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, China Very close to midnight on the 31 August 2022, minutes before Michelle Bachelet’s four-year term as UN Commissioner for Human Rights came to an end, her office finally succeeded in publishing her long-delayed report into serious human rights violations in the Xinjiang province in China. According to The Guardian newspaper, papers leaked in July of the same year showed sustained efforts by China to prevent the report’s release, and Bachelet has subsequently spoken of the intense pressure she was put under by the Chinese to prevent the report’s publication. 1 The report is sobering. 2 It is explicit that the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) has committed systematic violations of fundamental human rights against the Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim minorities in Xinjiang...

### Challenge to the abortion act 1967 dismissed In September, the High Court dismissed a judicial review of the Abortion Act 1967 that sought a judgement of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.1 The case focused on a clause in the Act which permits abortion in England, Scotland and Wales after 24 weeks if there is a substantial risk that, if the child were born, it would suffer from ‘such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped’. The case was brought by three parties: Heidi Crowter, a 24 year old woman living independently with Downs Syndrome and a campaigner for disability rights; a 2 year old boy with DS; and his mother who, when pregnant with him, felt pressure to terminate the pregnancy. The claimants sought a declaration that the clause was incompatible with the right to life; freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment; right to private and family life; and protection from discrimination. Further to this it was also argued that the Act does not permit abortion on the basis that an unborn child has been diagnosed with a non-fatal fetal disability such as DS and that such abortions should not be funded by the state. In dismissing the claim, the judges focused on the ‘margin of appreciation’ that the European law allows domestic states on this issue and the fact that a foetus has never been deemed to have personhood status under the ECHR. The judges noted the ability to provide for a disabled child would vary significantly and that some conditions would only be found late in a pregnancy, after 24 weeks. Stating that the case by its nature did not permit the Court to hear from other perspectives, including women who may be affected by any change to the law and further criminalisation of abortion, the judges emphasised …

In a recent judgment1 the Court of Protection was highly critical of health professionals for continuing to provide clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration in the face of disagreement about the patient’s best interests, without seeking to resolve the issue. This hearing had been set up specifically to consider whether GU’s dignity had been properly protected, and if not why not, given concerns raised by the Official Solicitor about what she considered to be “a complete abrogation of responsibility to consider properly or at all, and to determine whether it was in GU’s best interests and therefore lawful to continue to give him an invasive medical treatment, CANH.” In April 2014, at 63 years old and living in Thailand, GU sustained severe injuries after suffering from an electrocution accident. He sustained a cardiorespiratory arrest with a significant delay before cardiopulmonary resuscitation was started and was unconscious and unresponsive. In September 2014 he was transferred to the UK. In August 2018, GU’s brother made a request for a best interests decision concerning the continuation of CANH. The family met to discuss this and all except GU’s son, agreed that continuing CANH was not in GU’s best interests. In view of the fact that there was not unanimity among the family, a decision was made that CANH should continue. Commenting on this decision, Mr Justice Hayden said ‘the apparent assumption that in the face of family disagreement ‘ therefore will continue to be cared for by nursing staff ” is a troubling non sequitur’ and stressed that ‘family dissent to a medical consensus should never stand in the way of an incapacitated patients’ best interests being properly identified’. He also made clear that the responsibility for ensuring that a best interests assessment is undertaken rests with the …

OBJECTIVE: To describe the issues faced, and how they were addressed, by the University of Toronto Critical Care Medicine Program/Joint Centre for Bioethics Task Force on Appropriate Use of Life-Sustaining Treatment. The clinical problem addressed by the Task Force was dealing with requests by patients or substitute decision makers for life-sustaining treatment that their healthcare providers believe is inappropriate. DESIGN: Case study. SETTING: The University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics/Critical Care Medicine Program Task Force on Appropriate Use of Life-Sustaining Treatment. PARTICIPANTS: The 24-member Task Force included physician and nursing leaders from five critical care units, bioethicists, a legal scholar, a health administration expert, a social worker, and a hospital public relations professional. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Our specific lessons learned include a) a policy focus on process; b) use of a negotiation and mediation model, rather than a hospital ethics committee model, for this process; and c) the policy development process is itself a negotiation, so we recommend equal involvement of interested groups including patients, families, and the public. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes the key issues faced by the Task Force while developing its policy. It will provide a useful starting point for other groups developing policy on appropriate use of life-sustaining treatment

Legal battles continue in the UK over the Government’s plans to transport asylum seekers arriving on British shores to Rwanda in East Africa. Originally announced as a system for ‘processing’ asylum seekers, the Government has subsequently made it clear that there would not be an option for asylum seekers to return to the UK. The arrangement forms part of a deal between the UK and Rwanda, with the UK promising to invest £120 m in economic growth and development in Rwanda, along with financing the cost of the ‘offshored’ asylum operation.1 The Government states that the policy is designed to break the business model of people traffickers involved in facilitating hazardous trips across the Channel in small, overcrowded and unseaworthy craft, leading to multiple drownings. Critics argue that the policy will do nothing to stop desperate people from seeking refuge in the UK, that transferring already traumatised people to Rwanda – which has been criticised for its human rights record – is inhumane and potentially outwith international law. Medical bodies, including the BMA, along with refugee organisations have expressed serious concerns about the health impact of such a system of ‘offshoring’. An equivalent system in Australia has been notorious for the devastating health impacts on those ‘offshored’ to the Pacific islands of Manus and Naura. Unusually in the UK the offshoring proposals have been greeted by unanimous condemnation by the Church of England. The lawfulness of the process is also subject to question. On the 14 July, a plane carrying a small number of asylum seekers to Rwanda was halted shortly before take-off following an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights. The ECtHR, part of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is still a member, said an Iraqi man known as KN faced ‘a real …

As the COVID-19 vaccine roll out continues apace, in the higher-income countries at least, concerns remain about the level of vaccine coverage in some health and social care settings. Although most countries have seen a relatively high uptake of vaccination against COVID-19 among staff, there continue to be some pockets of hesitancy. The risk of outbreaks in settings with potentially very vulnerable patients has led some governments across Europe to consider, or to introduce, measures compelling healthcare staff to be vaccinated. The justifiability of mandating the vaccination of healthcare professionals is a longstanding question but it has come to the fore in recent months following a resurgence of cases of COVID-19 and the prevalence of the more transmissible Delta variant. In deciding whether the introduction of a mandate is appropriate, states have to balance a range of ethical and practical considerations. A voluntary approach, backed up with education, respects healthcare workers’ autonomy to make private healthcare decisions, which is valued highly in liberal democracies. However, healthcare professionals also have an obligation to ensure that they do not present a risk of harm to their patients. Similarly, healthcare providers have a responsibility to take appropriate steps to minimise the risk of infection. Alongside balancing these rights and responsibilities, governments must also consider the potential consequences and risks of enforcing vaccine uptake. For example, there are concerns that a coercive approach could deepen mistrust and resentment among people who are genuinely fearful or hesitant. Moreover, a large number of refusals and the subsequent imposition of sanctions, such as suspension or redeployment, could affect the ability of providers to staff necessary services. In the UK, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have all ruled out the introduction of compulsory vaccination. However, in July, the English Parliament voted through …

In June 2021, the BMA published its report on moral distress and moral injury in UK doctors.1 The report includes definitions of the terms ‘moral distress’ and ‘moral injury’ as well as a summary of how the concepts have developed over time. There is also an analysis of the BMA’s pan-profession survey of moral distress and moral injury of doctors in the UK, the first of its kind. The impact of COVID-19 and recommendations for tackling moral distress also feature. Many may be unfamiliar with the concepts of ‘moral distress’ and ‘moral injury’. These terms are relatively new, and debate is ongoing in academic circles on the best way to understand them.2 Some use the terms interchangeably. The BMA defines moral distress as the psychological unease generated where professionals identify an ethically correct action to take but are constrained in their ability to take that action. Even without an understanding of the morally correct action, moral distress can arise from the sense of a moral transgression. More simply, it is the feeling of unease stemming from situations where institutionally required behaviour does not align with moral principles. This can be as a result of a lack of power or agency, or structural limitations, such as insufficient staff, resources, training or time. The individual suffering from moral distress need not be the one who has acted or failed to act; moral distress can be caused by witnessing moral transgressions by others. Moral injury can arise where sustained moral distress leads to impaired function or longer-term psychological harm. Moral injury can produce profound guilt and shame, and in some cases also a sense of betrayal, anger and profound ‘moral disorientation’. It has also been linked to severe mental health issues. There is increasing recognition across the UK of the problem …

On 7 April 2022 – coinciding with World Health Day – the British Medical Association launched its new report, Health and human rights in the new world order.1 Written during the global upheaval triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, and published just weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the report responds to a range of emerging and intensifying threats to health-related human rights globally. As the report establishes, human rights in health and healthcare matter because human suffering, and its relief, are fundamental moral issues. As relief of human suffering is the primary purpose of medicine, it follows that doctors and other health professionals are often active in times of human challenge and extremity. During conflict, humanitarian crises, and, as we have so recently seen, global public health emergencies, health professionals are essential to the response. But these crises – and the response to them – can put fundamental human rights and interests under pressure. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has seen sustained indiscriminate shelling of civilian infrastructure. Whether health facilities were directly targeted is moot – the indiscriminate nature of the assault means they will inevitably be hit. Not only is this a violation of the Geneva Conventions, it undermines fundamental human rights, not least of which the right to health. Destroying health infrastructure drives further suffering and delays post-conflict recovery. Public heath emergencies can rightly require draconian measures – social distancing, enforced isolation, location tracking, economic shutdown. Although we saw their necessity during the COVID-19 outbreak, concerns were raised about disproportionate restrictions on basic rights, including rights to privacy and liberty. Human Rights Watch drew attention to the way governments unlawfully exploited COVID-19 to crack down on fundamental rights.2 Although conflicts and public health emergencies are not new, the report also tracks a number of …

At the time of writing, the UK Government’s ‘Illegal Migration Bill’1 had started progressing through the House of Commons. The Bill will enable the removal of people who have come to the UK seeking asylum by ‘illegal’ routes, including via the dangerous Channel crossing in small boats.2 That duty would apply whether a person makes a protection claim, human rights claim or is a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking. Asylum seekers risk crossing the Channel because there are very few, if any, safe and lawful ways to reach the UK. At least 60% of the people who have made the crossing last year would be recognised as refugees through the asylum process.3 The Bill will also give the UK Secretary of State a follow up duty to deny people arriving by ‘illegal’ routes access to the asylum system and to permanently deny them legal status in the UK, this includes leave to remain and citizenship. On the 24 March, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to both Speakers of the UK parliament, stating ‘… the Bill would have serious consequences both for the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in the UK, and for the upholding of the UK’s international obligations more generally. The UNHCR [UN Refugee Agency] has already stated that the Bill is in clear breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 …

In December 2022, the Office of the National Data Guardian (NDG)1 for health and social care in England published new guidance: What do we mean by public benefit? Evaluating public benefit when health and adult social care data is used for purposes beyond individual care.2 Research in the UK consistently demonstrates that for the public to consider a secondary use3 of health and care data appropriate and acceptable, it must deliver a benefit back to the public.4 The aim of the guidance is to help organisations to interpret and demonstrate the public good from their work more comprehensively, accurately, and consistently. The guidance defines and standardises the concept of public benefit to enable clearer interpretation and understanding. It aims to support better public benefit evaluations by: As the guidance is underpinned by a detailed dialogue with the public on what counts as a public benefit, it is hoped that following it will …

Health, ethics and COP27 On the 20 November 2022, the United Nations Climate Change COP27 announced a breakthrough agreement to provide ‘loss and damage’ funding for resource-poor countries seriously affected by climate change. 1 The establishment of the funding stream acknowledges, and attempts to address, one of many thorny ethical issues driven by climate change – to what extent countries that have benefited economically from past emissions of greenhouse gases owe reparative obligations to countries who have contributed minimally to climate change but are most at risk of its harms? One of the many reasons why this is such an important breakthrough is that it brings into the centre of climate policy-making questions of global – and intergenerational – justice and fairness. It acknowledges the critical importance of ethics in climate change deliberations. It is probably fair to say that climate change policy has been dominated to...

In previous Ethics briefings 1 we have highlighted the developments in the case of Bell & Another v the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. The case concerned a judicial review of the practice of prescribing puberty blocking treatment to children and young people at the Gender Identity Development Service managed by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. The Court of Appeal in its judgement2 found the Trust’s practices to be lawful, and overturned previous guidance given by the High Court which had contradicted the 'Gillick principle' regarding whether a child or young person could consent to medical treatment, without the consent of its parent. Despite this legal success, concerns over the GIDS continued. In September, NHS England commissioned an independent and wide-ranging review of gender identity services for children and young people led by Dr Hilary Cass, past president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Dr Cass’s Interim review, published in March,3 has resulted in a decision by NHS England to close the GIDS at the Trust by Spring 2023, and replace it with regional centres at existing children’s hospitals offering more 'holistic care' with ’strong links to mental health services’. It is proposed that regional centres will be established at Great Ormond Street Hospital, and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust. Dr Cass was critical of the clinic’s failure to collect sufficient data on the impact of puberty blockers in under-16s. …

In parts of the world, discussion regarding COVID-19 has shifted towards endemicity, and questions of living with, rather than directly battling, the virus. As a result, ethical questions are being refocussed. The imperative is beginning to shift towards what we can learn from the pandemic, and how we can better prepare for future global outbreaks. Among the questions that need to be addressed is what Covid-29 has taught us about how research can be conducted ethically during major global public health emergencies. It is widely accepted that research has an essential role to play in improving the effectiveness of health interventions in major public health crises.1 Even before COVID-19, a special series published in The Lancet highlighted the critical role of research in humanitarian crises, and lamented the paucity of good data on the effectiveness of health interventions in these particularly demanding contexts.2 The impact of expedited vaccine research on the mortality, morbidity and global disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic would be difficult to exaggerate. But it is clear that one important driver of vaccine hesitancy was public concern about the speed with which research into the vaccines was undertaken and hence the reliability of the data concerning their safety.3 Although for understandable reasons, the focus of attention on ethical research during the COVID-19 pandemic has been on vaccines and anti-virals, research in public health emergencies involves a wide range of activities designed to generate evidence, including social science research – which can be particularly critical in understanding barriers to vaccine uptake for example – along with epidemiological studies and health systems research. One widely acknowledged area of ethical tension concerning research in public health emergencies is between the need for rapid ethical review, and the strong moral requirement …