Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Introduction
Parker’s article is a welcome attempt to address the importance of environmental sustainability in the realm of clinical ethics.1 We support the recent movement to seriously consider the environmental impact of healthcare institutions in bioethics.2 3 Still, we find two partly linked weaknesses of Parker’s analysis and guideline suggestion. These relate to a need in ‘green’ bioethics to see beyond the normal healthcare ethical focus on health-related values related to individual patients, and to primarily adopt institutional ways of framing central decision problems.
‘Green’ bioethics looks further than the patient and beyond health
Traditional bioethics applies a restricted scope of values to assess clinical decisions: primarily health-related patient well-being (including life) and patient autonomy. If a decision improves (or, as in Parker’s inhaler case, maintains) a patient’s health-related well-being, this supports it. However, if a decision improves a patient’s non health-related well-being, say, winning a beauty contest or securing a job by having cosmetic surgery, it is not supported. And so on. This idea of healthcare as, in Michael Walzer’s classic terminology, a separate ‘sphere of justice’ has two interrelated limitations: it reflects a bias towards individual patients over other people, and it restricts the scope of values allowed to influence healthcare ethical judgements. These limitations appear once we see that the issue addressed by Parker can be framed either as prescription decisions taken by individual doctors against the background of …
Footnotes
Twitter @AndersHerlitz, @erik_malmqvist, @christianmunthe
AH, EM and CM contributed equally.
Funding This research was supported by the UGOT Challenges Initiative at the University of Gothenburg, no award/grant number, for CARe: The Centre for Antibiotic Resistance Research; the Swedish Research Council (VR), contract no. 2018-05771, for the project EDAR: The Environment as a Driver for Antibiotic Resistance; and the Swedish Innovation Agency VINNOVA, contract no. 2021-02699, for the project PLATINEA 2.0: Availability and Individualised Use of Antibiotics.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Barriers to green inhaler prescribing: ethical issues in environmentally sustainable clinical practice
- Environmental impact of inhalers for respiratory diseases: decreasing the carbon footprint while preserving patient-tailored treatment
- Costs of switching to low global warming potential inhalers. An economic and carbon footprint analysis of NHS prescription data in England
- Inhaler devices for asthma
- Reducing carbon footprint of inhalers: analysis of climate and clinical implications of different scenarios in five European countries
- Systematic review of clinical effectiveness of pressurised metered dose inhalers versus other hand held inhaler devices for delivering corticosteroids in asthma
- Challenges in changing to non-chlorofluorocarbon inhalers in the treatment of asthma
- Carbon footprint impact of the choice of inhalers for asthma and COPD
- P229 Factors affecting inhaler choice and adherence in urban Liverpool
- The scope of patient, healthcare professional and healthcare systems responsibilities to reduce the carbon footprint of inhalers: a response to commentaries