Verina Wild

Marginalization is a widely studied phenomenon and recognized as a critical topic in relation to health, shaping health inequities, access to resources, health outcomes, and policy decisions. However, despite its normative importance for health and justice, its conceptual role in bioethics remains unclear. This paper critically examines how marginalization is addressed in bioethics, analyzing its meaning, conceptual usage, and potential for further normative theorization. By exploring available definitions and how marginalization appears in bioethical literature, recurring patterns and conceptual gaps are identified. The analysis reveals two major findings. First, while definitions from disciplines beyond bioethics provide valuable insights, marginalization has not been normatively theorized as a distinct conceptual phenomenon within bioethics. Instead, dynamics of marginalization are largely addressed through established bioethical concepts, such as vulnerability or epistemic injustice. Second, it stands out that the contemporary redefinition of vulnerability in bioethics increasingly incorporates discussions on systemic exclusion and structural injustice, both central to marginalization. This raises the question of whether marginalization requires distinct conceptualization in bioethics or if its core dimensions are already encompassed by existing approaches and concepts. Consequently, this paper argues that further conceptual debate on marginalization is needed to assess its potentially distinct contributions to bioethics. It develops arguments for making space for the concept of marginalization within bioethics in its own right. To address these conceptual gaps, this paper calls for a more explicit normative analysis of marginalization to establish its role in bioethical discourse and to clarify its implications for equitable health, healthcare practices, and policies.

The climate and further environmental crises have motivated calls for the medical profession to act by taking on additional responsibilities. These calls to assume responsibilities towards environmental protection and to systematically consider the health impacts of these crises greatly vary in their scope and demandingness. Through a review of journal publications, we have mapped the various calls for physicians to take on responsibilities in relation to these crises as individuals and as a professional group. These professional responsibilities, obligations or duties were grouped in four broad categories of physicians’ roles as (i) medical practitioners, (ii) medical scientists, (iii) facility (co-)managers, and (iv) citizens. In sum, these responsibilities go beyond actions within the individual patient-physician relationship and setting, demanding from physicians to get involved within their institution, their community, engage with policy-makers, and also concern themselves with the health effects of environmental changes also on distant others, such as people in other parts of the world and future generations.

Climate change, ecological degradation and global inequalities are symptoms of an eco-social polycrisis that threatens global health and health equity. This polycrisis is deeply rooted in Western value systems. These can be described as anthropocentric and individualistic and support the prevailing neoliberal economic model. Bioethics is now called to respond to the urgent health-related ethical challenges of the polycrisis and has recently begun to engage with Planetary Health and One Health in this regard. Both have mainly emerged in the Western scientific community and understand human health to be inextricably linked to the state of environmental and structural societal determinants. We argue that bioethics should indeed embrace holistic or integrated understandings of health but also carefully revisit the foundational Western value systems at the root of the polycrisis. If Planetary Health and One Health stay grounded in Western value systems, an extensive conceptual engagement might be problematic for bioethics. Instead of turning to Western concepts of health, bioethics should engage deeply with Indigenous and non-Western ways of knowing and critically reflect on its own role in inadvertently maintaining the status quo.

Various understandings of “resilience” dominate debates on climate change without consensus on its ethical implications. Individualistic interpretations can conflict with ethical values like minimizing population harms and countering health inequities. More systemic, ecological interpretations may overlook justice concerns, such as who is more burdened or marginalized regarding climate impacts. This article argues for integrating a normative, justice-oriented approach to resilience, informed by feminist and intersectional theory. It outlines six principles: build in redundancies and diversification; foster knowledge acquisition and sharing; increase social cohesion, connectivity and willingness to cooperate; improve participation and facilitate polycentric governance; protect regenerative capacities; and implement preventive measures.

While there is agreement on the need to improve sustainability in university hospitals, there are strong differences of opinion on how such goals interact with responsibilities of the medical profession, including research activities. To facilitate sustainability transitions in university hospitals, we need to gain a better understanding of the multiple incentive structures and ethical responsibilities related to sustainability that influence the physicians working there. Furthermore, there needs to be greater awareness and systematic consideration of the health co-benefits of sustainability transitions. Both are necessary to prevent the sustainability agendas in hospital settings from becoming deadlocked due to disagreements over priorities and implementation, despite initial consensus in principle.

Asgary and Smith (2013) identify an important challenge: the difficult position of physicians caught between the obligation to treat every human being with the same professional rigor, and their feelings of responsibility toward the state and its judicial decisions on asylum requests. The authors show that in some cases this conflict leads to a tendency to "sacrifice their medical responsibilities". The authors' core demand is that health care workers should be independent of the state and judiciary systems, and thus prioritize the interests of the patient. We agree entirely with the authors, that well-performed documenting is the only ethically justifiable option and should not be influenced by a feeling of responsibility for contributing to judicial decisions. However, the authors also address the more general, and ethically more challenging, issue of the responsibility of health care workers and the state toward asylum seekers and ask, how much health care provision is appropriate?

The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting countries across the globe. Only a globally coordinated response, however, will enable the containment of the virus. Responding to a request from policy makers for ethics input for a global resource pledging event as a starting point, this paper outlines normative and procedural principles to inform a coordinated global coronavirus response. Highlighting global connections and specific vulnerabilities from the pandemic, and proposing standards for reasonable and accountable decision-making, the ambition of the paper is two-fold: to raise awareness for the justice dimensions in the global response, and to argue for moving health from the periphery to the centre of philosophical debates about social and global justice.

Hate speech is endemic in digital space, and it does not spare academia. Especially scholars working in fields prone to political debate - from migration to climate change, from gender to refugee integration, and many more topics - find themselves increasingly attacked. With this chapter, we hope to raise awareness for the increasingly prevalent phenomenon of cyberhate targeting academics. Our intention is to shed light on some of its harmful effects, and, by providing some conceptual analysis, to contribute to individual and organisational prevention and coping strategies. We conclude that guarding against cyberhate is now part of academics’ and their institutions’ responsibility.

This literature review provides an overview of ethical approaches used at the intersection of climate change, the environment and health. Six ethical approaches are discussed: (i) rights- based approaches, concentrating on human rights, animal rights and environmental rights; (ii) justice approaches, discussing issues of distribution, relations, climate health justice, future generations, and interspecies justice; (iii) integrated concepts of health, such as One Health and Planetary Health; (iv) Indigenous and non-Western perspectives, introducing the significance of biocultural heritage, harmonious relationships, and decolonisation movements; (v) professional responsibilities towards the environment among health workers and other professions; and (vi) ethical principles in relation to climate change and the environment. A concise assessment is provided on how each of these ethical approaches may inform policy and practice addressing climate change, environmental degradation and health.

Public collective hunger strikes take place in complex social and political contexts, require medical attention and present ethical challenges to physicians. Empirical research, the ethical debate to date and existing guidelines by the World Medical Association focus almost exclusively on hunger strikes in detention. However, the public space differs substantially with regard to the conditions for the provision of health care and the diverse groups of healthcare providers or stakeholders involved. By reviewing empirical research on the experience of health professionals with public collective hunger strikes, we identified the following ethical challenges: (1) establishment of a trustful physician–striker relationship, (2) balancing of medico‐ethical principles in medical decision‐making, (3) handling of loyalty conflicts and (4) preservation of professional independence and the risk of political instrumentalization. Some of these challenges have already been described and discussed, yet not contextualized for public collective strikes, while others are novel. The presence of voluntary physicians may offer opportunities for a trustful relationship and, hence, for ethical treatment decisions. According to our findings, it requires more attention to how to realise autonomous medical decisions in the complex context of a dynamic, often unstructured and politically charged setting, which ethical norms should shape the professional role of voluntary physicians, and what is the influence of the hunger strikers' collective on individual healthcare decisions. Our article can serve as a starting point for further ethical discussion. It can also provide the basis for the development of potential guidelines to support health professionals involved in public collective hunger strikes.

Definition of the problemThe upcoming reforms according to the specifications of the Master Plan 2020 provide for a competency-oriented restructuring of medical studies. This article aims to develop perspectives on how teaching ethics in medical studies can be more strongly oriented at building competencies. In this way, it pursues the goal of making the concept of competency more tangible for medical ethics and usable for the design of medical ethics education.ArgumentsWe understand competencies as dispositions for actions that enable problem solving. By transferring the concept of moral intelligence to the moral actions of physicians in patient care, we specify five ethical–moral competencies that must be present for morally appropriate, ethically reflected actions by future physicians: (1) the ability to form a professional moral compass, (2) the willingness to align oneself with professional ethical norms and values, (3) the ability to perceive moral dimensions of medical action, (4) the ability to make moral judgments based on ethical considerations about the right action, and (5) the willingness to realize ethically justified action. We illustrate their importance for teaching medical ethics using the example of teaching clinical ethics in medical studies.ConclusionOur conceptualization of moral–ethical competencies can be used to design concrete courses in a competency-oriented way. Our approach could be applied analogously to other areas of teaching ethics in health care.

Die Medikamentenversorgung während der Schwangerschaft stellt für die zu behandelnden Frauen und die behandelnden Ärzte gleichermaßen ein Problem dar. Eine „evidence based“ Therapie wirft allerdings die schwierigen Fragen auf, ob und inwiefern Arzneimittelforschung an schwangeren Frauen gerechtfertigt sein könnte und, wenn ja, unter welchen Bedingungen. In meinem Beitrag stelle ich die aktuelle Situation hinsichtlich Forschung und Therapie während der Schwangerschaft dar. Es folgt eine Darstellung von Ergebnissen aus Gesprächen, die mit schwangeren und frisch entbundenen Frauen geführt wurden. Abschließend werden die Kernkonflikte der Debatte diskutiert, und es wird aufgezeigt, dass Arzneimittelforschung an schwangeren Frauen dringend geboten ist. Nur in einer geringen Anzahl von Studientypen ergeben sich tatsächlich problematische Fragen, zu deren Lösung verschiedene Argumentationslinien aufgezeigt werden

Our paper was written to highlight the need for mitigating vulnerability in COVID-19 tracing technology. As the pandemic was unravelling in mid 2020 and infection rates were rising steeply across the globe, we were following the news on emerging response measures and their social impact. We were alarmed by media reports regarding racial profiling and criminalization related to the implementation of physical distancing measures. Media reports documenting the fining of predominantly Black and Hispanic people in New York City, the closures of Roma settlements in Spain, Slovakia, or Romania, or the disproportionate patrolling of migrant neighborhoods in Sydney, Australia, made it obvious that...

Mobile applications (apps) have gained significant popularity as a new intervention strategy responding to violence against women and girls. Despite their growing relevance, an assessment from the perspective of public health ethics is still lacking. Here, we base our discussion on the understanding of violence against women and girls as a multidimensional, global public health issue on structural, societal and individual levels and situate it within the theoretical framework of structural injustice, including epistemic injustice. Based on a systematic app review we previously conducted, we evaluate the content and functions of apps through the lens of structural injustice. We argue that technological solutions such as apps may be a useful tool in the fight against violence against women and girls but have to be situated within the broader frame of public health that considers the structural dimensions of such violence. Ultimately, the concerns raised by structural injustice are—alongside key concerns of safety, data privacy, importance of human supportive contact, and so forth—crucial dimensions in the ethical assessment of such apps. However, research on the role and relevance of apps as strategies to address the structural and epistemic dimensions of violence remains scarce. This article aims to provide a foundation for further discussion in this area and could be applicable to other areas in public health policy and practice.

There is growing interest in contact tracing apps for pandemic management. It is crucial to consider ethical requirements before, while, and after implementing such apps. In this paper, we illustrate the complexity and multiplicity of the ethical considerations by presenting an ethical framework for a responsible design and implementation of CT apps. Using this framework as a starting point, we briefly highlight the interconnection of social and political contexts, available measures of pandemic management, and a multi-layer assessment of CT apps. We will discuss some trade-offs that arise from this perspective. We then suggest that public trust is of major importance for population uptake of contact tracing apps. Hasty, ill-prepared or badly communicated implementations of CT apps will likely undermine public trust, and as such, risk impeding general effectiveness.

Debates about effective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have emphasized the paramount importance of digital tracing technology in suppressing the disease. So far, discussions about the ethics of this technology have focused on privacy concerns, efficacy, and uptake. However, important issues regarding power imbalances and vulnerability also warrant attention. As demonstrated in other forms of digital surveillance, vulnerable subpopulations pay a higher price for surveillance measures. There is reason to worry that some types of COVID-19 technology might lead to the employment of disproportionate profiling, policing, and criminalization of marginalized groups. It is, thus, of crucial importance to interrogate vulnerability in COVID-19 apps and ensure that the development, implementation, and data use of this surveillance technology avoids exacerbating vulnerability and the risk of harm to surveilled subpopulations, while maintaining the benefits of data collection across the whole population. This paper outlines the major challenges and a set of values that should be taken into account when implementing disease surveillance technology in the pandemic response.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents unprecedented challenges to public health decision-making. Specifically, the lack of evidence and the urgency with which a response is called for, raise the ethical challenge of assessing how much (and what kind of) evidence is required for the justification of interventions in response to the various threats we face. Here we discuss the intervention of introducing technology that aims to trace and alert contacts of infected persons—contact tracing (CT) technology. Determining whether such an intervention is proportional is complicated by complex trade-offs and feedback loops. We suggest that the resulting uncertainties necessitate a precautionary approach. On the one hand, precautionary reasons support CT technology as a means to contribute to the prevention of harms caused by alternative interventions, or COVID-19 itself. On the other hand, however, both the extent to which such technology itself present risks of serious harm, as well as its effectiveness, remain unclear. We therefore argue that a precautionary approach should put reversibility of CT technology at the forefront. We outline several practical implications.