| 1. |
- Agnafors, Marcus
(författare)
-
A Critical Comment on Collste
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Public Health Ethics. - : Oxford University Press. - 1754-9973 .- 1754-9981. ; 4:2, s. 203-205
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This article claims that the account of specification as a way to solve conflicts between rights, suggested by Göran Collste, is unsatisfactory. It is argued that specification is not a solution on its own, but is better described as a remedy in response to a political failure.
|
|
| 2. |
- Collste, Göran, 1950-
(författare)
-
A Reply to Agnafors
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Public Health Ethics. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 1754-9973 .- 1754-9981. ; 4:3, s. 303-304
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Collste, Göran, 1950-
(författare)
-
Specifying Rights: the Case of TRIPS
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Public Health Ethics. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 1754-9981 .- 1754-9973. ; 4:1, s. 63-69
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The TRIPS-agreement has been widely discussed. Critics have critisised it for favouring property rights at the cost of public health in AIDS-stricken development countries. In this article the conflict between on the one hand Intellectual Property Rights and on the other a right to subsistence is analysed with the help of a method for specification. The rationalization of TRIPS and its amendments raises two questions for ethics, one normative and one meta-ethical. Firstly, which right has priority: the right to property or the right to subsistence? Secondly, how can conflicting rights be reconciled in a coherent ethical system. The aim of the article is to answer these two questions and in order to do that the method of specification developed by the philosopher Henry Richardson is applied. The result is a specified norm applicable for this and similar kind of rights conflicts.
|
|
| 4. |
- Nihlén Fahlquist, Jessica, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Ethical problems with information on infant feeding in developed countries
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Public Health Ethics. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1754-9973 .- 1754-9981. ; 4:2, s. 192-202
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Most sources providing information on infant feeding strongly recommend breastfeeding. The WHO and UNICEF recommend that women breastfeed their babies and that health professionals promote breastfeeding. This creates severe pressure on women to breastfeed, a pressure which is ethically questionable since many women have physical or emotional problems with breastfeeding. In this article, we use insights from the ethics of risk to criticize the current breastfeeding policy. We argue that there are problems related to balancing aggregate wellbeing versus individual wellbeing, that not enough attention is paid to alternatives, that women’s emotions and their need for free choice should be considered and that issues of equity are currently overlooked. We also criticize the way scientific information is presented in the current policy. We conclude that the official sources of information on infant feeding should be revised. Information should be more nuanced and designed to support mothers, and families in making a free choice on what is the best way to feed their babies.
|
|
| 5. |
- Vilhelmsson, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Mental Ill Health, Public Health and Medicalization
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Public Health Ethics. - : Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy F. - 1754-9973 .- 1754-9981. ; 4:3, s. 207-217
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- WHO suggests mental ill health in terms of depression to be the highest ranking disease problem in the developed world in 2020-2030 and claims a public health approach to be the most appropriate response. But some argue that the alarming reports on mental ill health have their ground in the methods of inquiry themselves and refer to medicalization as an important issue. The aim of this article is to explore and illuminate the issue of what is meant by mental health and mental ill health and what it means that mental ill health is a major public health problem. Basically, two understandings and aspects of public health exist: a reductionist and a holistic with connections to different theories of health. These diverging understandings may lead to quite different public health responses, and they may have different consequences with regard to medicalization. It is concluded that we need more clearly elaborated ways to think about public health so that the increased attention to mental ill health as a public health problem does not in itself lead to medicalization in terms of just medical treatment. Otherwise, we risk losing the importance of public health as an overarching social and political instrument.
|
|
