Article Text
Abstract
We are in the midst of a global crisis of climate change and environmental degradation to which the healthcare sector directly contributes. Yet conceptions of health justice have little to say about the environment. They purport societies should ensure adequate health for their populations but fail to require doing so in ways that avoid environmental harm or injustice. We need to expand our understanding of health justice to consider the environment and do so without reinforcing the epistemic injustice inherent in the field of bioethics. This paper considers what work in philosophy related to the environment should be applied to help build that understanding and develops ideas about the healthcare sector’s responsibilities of justice to the environment. It first introduces the dominant multivalent environmental and ecological justice (EJ) concept in philosophy and each of its dimensions: distribution, participation, recognition and well-being. It then shows why applying that conception alone to broaden our understanding of health justice will reinforce epistemic injustice within bioethics. Drawing on EJ literature from the global South, the paper demonstrates that different ontological and experiential starting points identify additional EJ dimensions—power and harmony—and give rise to a nuanced understanding of the recognition dimension relative to the dominant EJ conception. The paper concludes by applying them to articulate healthcare sector responsibilities of justice to the environment, demonstrating they ground responsibilities beyond reducing its carbon emissions.
- Ethics
- Environment
- Health Care Economics and Organizations
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Footnotes
Contributors BP conceived of the paper topic and conducted the analyses presented in the paper. BP wrote the first draft of the paper and revised it critically for important intellectual content. BP approved the version of the paper for publication. BP accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study and controlled the decision to publish.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Where is knowledge from the global South? An account of epistemic justice for a global bioethics
- Decolonising human rights: how intellectual property laws result in unequal access to the COVID-19 vaccine
- Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study
- How to identify epistemic injustice in global health research funding practices: a decolonial guide
- Colonisation and its aftermath: reimagining global surgery
- Decolonising ideas of healing in medical education
- Published research on the human health implications of climate change between 2012 and 2021: cross sectional study
- Beyond high-level recommendations and rule books: doing the ‘hard work’ of global health research – lessons and recommendations from an interdisciplinary global partnership
- Knowledge from the global South is in the global South
- Colonialism in the new digital health agenda