Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts
Identifieur interne : 001A34 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001A33; suivant : 001A35Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts
Auteurs : Cara M. CheyetteSource :
- The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics [ 1073-1105 ] ; 2011-12.
Abstract
Communicable diseases, especially those that are highly contagious, are on the rise and each of us, no matter who we are or where we live, is equally at risk of transmitting contagious diseases to others as we are of contracting such diseases from others. Because contagious diseases are as readily passed state‐to‐state as person‐to‐person, we all have a stake in every country's ability to enact effective infectious disease control policies, while policies grounded in shared values are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and thereby prove most effective. This paper suggests that principlism proved invaluable as an ethical framework for resolving hard medical cases and setting health care policy because it nicely “fits” dilemmas that arise in the context of the special relationship between doctors and patients or within family units. It then argues that communitarianism provides the better foundation for crafting infectious diseases control policies because contagious diseases, which often pass between perfect strangers, raise questions about the moral obligations we owe to (or are entitled to demand of) people with whom we share no “special” relationship. Accordingly, a socially embedded framework such as communitarianism may be a better fit for the more socially embedded ethical dilemmas of communicable diseases.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00635.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:FA496EF737F08B292505E500FB0C470077AD4B67Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts</title><author><name sortKey="Cheyette, Cara M" sort="Cheyette, Cara M" uniqKey="Cheyette C" first="Cara M." last="Cheyette">Cara M. Cheyette</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Currently a Lecturer at Boston University Metropolitan College, teaching Ethical Issues in Medicine and Health for Health Communicators (a required course for that program's Master of Science in Health Communication).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:FA496EF737F08B292505E500FB0C470077AD4B67</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00635.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5/fulltext.pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001A34</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001A34</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts</title><author><name sortKey="Cheyette, Cara M" sort="Cheyette, Cara M" uniqKey="Cheyette C" first="Cara M." last="Cheyette">Cara M. Cheyette</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Currently a Lecturer at Boston University Metropolitan College, teaching Ethical Issues in Medicine and Health for Health Communicators (a required course for that program's Master of Science in Health Communication).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE ETHICS</title><idno type="ISSN">1073-1105</idno><idno type="eISSN">1748-720X</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">39</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="678">678</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="689">689</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">12</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-12">2011-12</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1073-1105</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1073-1105</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Communicable diseases, especially those that are highly contagious, are on the rise and each of us, no matter who we are or where we live, is equally at risk of transmitting contagious diseases to others as we are of contracting such diseases from others. Because contagious diseases are as readily passed state‐to‐state as person‐to‐person, we all have a stake in every country's ability to enact effective infectious disease control policies, while policies grounded in shared values are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and thereby prove most effective. This paper suggests that principlism proved invaluable as an ethical framework for resolving hard medical cases and setting health care policy because it nicely “fits” dilemmas that arise in the context of the special relationship between doctors and patients or within family units. It then argues that communitarianism provides the better foundation for crafting infectious diseases control policies because contagious diseases, which often pass between perfect strangers, raise questions about the moral obligations we owe to (or are entitled to demand of) people with whom we share no “special” relationship. Accordingly, a socially embedded framework such as communitarianism may be a better fit for the more socially embedded ethical dilemmas of communicable diseases.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>communitarianism</json:string><json:string>bioethics</json:string><json:string>principlism</json:string><json:string>communitarian</json:string><json:string>goliath</json:string><json:string>communicable</json:string><json:string>communitarian approach</json:string><json:string>public health</json:string><json:string>common good</json:string><json:string>cheyette</json:string><json:string>communicable disease</json:string><json:string>cara</json:string><json:string>callahan</json:string><json:string>contagious disease</json:string><json:string>gillon</json:string><json:string>principlist</json:string><json:string>infectious disease</json:string><json:string>moral obligation</json:string><json:string>medicine ethic cara</json:string><json:string>research result winter</json:string><json:string>human right</json:string><json:string>ethic</json:string><json:string>distributive justice</json:string><json:string>ethical dilemma</json:string><json:string>health care worker</json:string><json:string>medical ethic</json:string><json:string>case study</json:string><json:string>critique</json:string><json:string>harm principle</json:string><json:string>theoretical medicine</json:string><json:string>brooklyn chest hospital</json:string><json:string>individual right</json:string><json:string>infectious disease control policy</json:string><json:string>feminist theory</json:string><json:string>public health ethic</json:string><json:string>beneficence</json:string><json:string>feminist</json:string><json:string>moral dilemma</json:string><json:string>palliative care</json:string><json:string>human dignity</json:string><json:string>more likely</json:string><json:string>principlist approach</json:string><json:string>third party</json:string><json:string>social interaction</json:string><json:string>common morality</json:string><json:string>oxford university press</json:string><json:string>england journal</json:string><json:string>medicine ethic</json:string><json:string>contagious</json:string><json:string>ward staff</json:string><json:string>different stage</json:string><json:string>ethical theory</json:string><json:string>sputum smear negative</json:string><json:string>other patient</json:string><json:string>opportunistic infection</json:string><json:string>global health ethic</json:string><json:string>principle method</json:string><json:string>nothing more</json:string><json:string>certain value</json:string><json:string>boston university school</json:string><json:string>cursory survey</json:string><json:string>ethical ground</json:string><json:string>immune system</json:string><json:string>less likely</json:string><json:string>goliath case</json:string><json:string>ethical problem</json:string><json:string>abstract form</json:string><json:string>reciprocal obligation</json:string><json:string>infectious disease control</json:string><json:string>public health policy</json:string><json:string>perfect stranger</json:string><json:string>communitarian position</json:string><json:string>moral intuition</json:string><json:string>medical research</json:string><json:string>effective infectious disease control policy</json:string><json:string>prima facie principle</json:string><json:string>infection control</json:string><json:string>hastings center report</json:string><json:string>drug resistant tuberculosis</json:string><json:string>western cape</json:string><json:string>negative sputum smear</json:string><json:string>pulmonary tuberculosis</json:string><json:string>correctional service</json:string><json:string>universal access</json:string><json:string>moral theory</json:string><json:string>individualist position</json:string><json:string>distributive</json:string><json:string>tuberculosis</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Cara M. Cheyette</name><affiliations><json:string>Currently a Lecturer at Boston University Metropolitan College, teaching Ethical Issues in Medicine and Health for Health Communicators (a required course for that program's Master of Science in Health Communication).</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>JLME635</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Communicable diseases, especially those that are highly contagious, are on the rise and each of us, no matter who we are or where we live, is equally at risk of transmitting contagious diseases to others as we are of contracting such diseases from others. Because contagious diseases are as readily passed state‐to‐state as person‐to‐person, we all have a stake in every country's ability to enact effective infectious disease control policies, while policies grounded in shared values are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and thereby prove most effective. This paper suggests that principlism proved invaluable as an ethical framework for resolving hard medical cases and setting health care policy because it nicely “fits” dilemmas that arise in the context of the special relationship between doctors and patients or within family units. It then argues that communitarianism provides the better foundation for crafting infectious diseases control policies because contagious diseases, which often pass between perfect strangers, raise questions about the moral obligations we owe to (or are entitled to demand of) people with whom we share no “special” relationship. Accordingly, a socially embedded framework such as communitarianism may be a better fit for the more socially embedded ethical dilemmas of communicable diseases.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.412</score><pdfWordCount>9787</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>58729</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.7</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>12</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>594 x 792 pts</pdfPageSize><pdfWordsPerPage>816</pdfWordsPerPage><pdfText>true</pdfText><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>201</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1340</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts</title><pmid><json:string>22084854</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1748-720X</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1073-1105</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1748-720X</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JLME</json:string></publisherId><volume>39</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>678</first><last>689</last><total>12</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2009</json:string><json:string>2011</json:string><json:string>1960s</json:string><json:string>1970s</json:string><json:string>2008</json:string><json:string>1996</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Research Consultant</json:string><json:string>Boston University</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Jonathan Mann</json:string><json:string>Edmund Pellegrino</json:string><json:string>Daniel Callahan</json:string><json:string>Leslie Francis</json:string><json:string>Goliath</json:string><json:string>Cheyette</json:string><json:string>James Childress</json:string><json:string>Desmond Tutu</json:string><json:string>Just Wants</json:string><json:string>Michael A. Grodin</json:string><json:string>Obama</json:string><json:string>Cara M. Cheyette</json:string><json:string>Human Rights</json:string><json:string>George J. Annas</json:string><json:string>Callahan</json:string><json:string>David</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>United States</json:string><json:string>Cape Town</json:string><json:string>American</json:string><json:string>America</json:string><json:string>South Africa</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Margaret Battin et al.</json:string><json:string>Solomon Benitar et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - law</json:string><json:string>2 - ethics</json:string><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - medicine, legal</json:string><json:string>2 - medical ethics</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - arts & humanities</json:string><json:string>2 - philosophy & theology</json:string><json:string>3 - applied ethics</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - Health Policy</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - General Medicine</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Nursing</json:string><json:string>3 - Issues, ethics and legal aspects</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00635.x</json:string></doi><id>FA496EF737F08B292505E500FB0C470077AD4B67</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5/fulltext.pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5/bundle.zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5/fulltext.tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2011 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2011-12"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Cara M.</forename><surname>Cheyette</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName type="institution">Currently a Lecturer at Boston University Metropolitan College</orgName><address><addrLine>teaching Ethical Issues in Medicine and Health for Health Communicators (a required course for that program's Master of Science in Health Communication).</addrLine></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">FA496EF737F08B292505E500FB0C470077AD4B67</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00635.x</idno><idno type="unit">JLME635</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JLME.JLME635.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE ETHICS</title><idno type="pISSN">1073-1105</idno><idno type="eISSN">1748-720X</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1748-720X</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jlme.2011.39.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">JLME</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">39</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="678">678</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="689">689</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">12</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-12"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><encodingDesc><schemaRef type="ODD" url="https://xml-schema.delivery.istex.fr/tei-istex.odd"></schemaRef><appInfo><application ident="pub2tei" version="1.0.10" when="2019-12-20"><label>pub2TEI-ISTEX</label><desc>A set of style sheets for converting XML documents encoded in various scientific publisher formats into a common TEI format.
<ref target="http://www.tei-c.org/">We use TEI</ref></desc></application></appInfo></encodingDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>Communicable diseases, especially those that are highly contagious, are on the rise and each of us, no matter who we are or where we live, is equally at risk of transmitting contagious diseases to others as we are of contracting such diseases from others. Because contagious diseases are as readily passed state‐to‐state as person‐to‐person, we all have a stake in every country's ability to enact effective infectious disease control policies, while policies grounded in shared values are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and thereby prove most effective. This paper suggests that principlism proved invaluable as an ethical framework for resolving hard medical cases and setting health care policy because it nicely “fits” dilemmas that arise in the context of the special relationship between doctors and patients or within family units. It then argues that communitarianism provides the better foundation for crafting infectious diseases control policies because contagious diseases, which often pass between perfect strangers, raise questions about the moral obligations we owe to (or are entitled to demand of) people with whom we share no “special” relationship. Accordingly, a socially embedded framework such as communitarianism may be a better fit for the more socially embedded ethical dilemmas of communicable diseases.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Independent Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2019-12-20" who="#istex" xml:id="pub2tei">formatting</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5/fulltext.txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1748-720X</doi><issn type="print">1073-1105</issn><issn type="electronic">1748-720X</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JLME"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE ETHICS">The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12104"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jlme.2011.39.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="39">39</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2011-12">Winter 2011</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="13" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00635.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JLME635"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="12"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Independent Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2011 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.0 mode:FullText" date="2011-11-23"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-11-15"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-11-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-31"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-04"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="678">678</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="689">689</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JLME.JLME635.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="70"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="1"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Cara M.</givenNames><familyName>Cheyette</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Currently a Lecturer at Boston University Metropolitan College, teaching Ethical Issues in Medicine and Health for Health Communicators (a required course for that program's Master of Science in Health Communication).</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>Communicable diseases, especially those that are highly contagious, are on the rise and each of us, no matter who we are or where we live, is equally at risk of transmitting contagious diseases to others as we are of contracting such diseases from others. Because contagious diseases are as readily passed state‐to‐state as person‐to‐person, we all have a stake in every country's ability to enact effective infectious disease control policies, while policies grounded in shared values are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and thereby prove most effective. This paper suggests that principlism proved invaluable as an ethical framework for resolving hard medical cases and setting health care policy because it nicely “fits” dilemmas that arise in the context of the special relationship between doctors and patients or within family units. It then argues that communitarianism provides the better foundation for crafting infectious diseases control policies because contagious diseases, which often pass between perfect strangers, raise questions about the moral obligations we owe to (or are entitled to demand of) people with whom we share no “special” relationship. Accordingly, a socially embedded framework such as communitarianism may be a better fit for the more socially embedded ethical dilemmas of communicable diseases.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Cara M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Cheyette</namePart><affiliation>Currently a Lecturer at Boston University Metropolitan College, teaching Ethical Issues in Medicine and Health for Health Communicators (a required course for that program's Master of Science in Health Communication).</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="references">70</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">1</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Communicable diseases, especially those that are highly contagious, are on the rise and each of us, no matter who we are or where we live, is equally at risk of transmitting contagious diseases to others as we are of contracting such diseases from others. Because contagious diseases are as readily passed state‐to‐state as person‐to‐person, we all have a stake in every country's ability to enact effective infectious disease control policies, while policies grounded in shared values are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and thereby prove most effective. This paper suggests that principlism proved invaluable as an ethical framework for resolving hard medical cases and setting health care policy because it nicely “fits” dilemmas that arise in the context of the special relationship between doctors and patients or within family units. It then argues that communitarianism provides the better foundation for crafting infectious diseases control policies because contagious diseases, which often pass between perfect strangers, raise questions about the moral obligations we owe to (or are entitled to demand of) people with whom we share no “special” relationship. Accordingly, a socially embedded framework such as communitarianism may be a better fit for the more socially embedded ethical dilemmas of communicable diseases.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1073-1105</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1748-720X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1748-720X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JLME</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>39</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>678</start><end>689</end><total>12</total></extent></part></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit1"><titleInfo><title>M. Battin, L. Francis, J. Jacobson, and C. Smith, The Patient as Victim and Vector: Ethics and Infectious Disease (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit2"><titleInfo><title>F. D. Davis, “Human Dignity and Respect for Persons: A Historical Perspective on Public Bioethics,” in Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President's Council on Bioethics, March 2008, available at (last visited September 7, 2011).</title> </titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit3"><titleInfo><title>A. Jonsen, The Birth of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit4"><titleInfo><title>“How Infectious Diseases Got Left Out – And What This Omission Might Have Meant for Bioethics,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">L.</namePart><namePart type="family">Francis</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Battin</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Jacobsen</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">C.</namePart><namePart type="family">Smith</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Botkin</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">L. Francis, M. Battin, J. Jacobsen, C. Smith, and J. Botkin, “How Infectious Diseases Got Left Out – And What This Omission Might Have Meant for Bioethics,” Bioethics 19, no. 4 (2005): 307–332. The President's Council on Bioethics website drives this point home: one would be hard‐pressed to find any mention of infectious, communicable or contagious diseases. See last visited (September 7, 2011). Cf. L. Churchill, “Are We Professionals? A Critical Look at the Social Role of Bioethics,” Daedelus 128, no. 4 (1999): 253–235 (noting that bioethicists have been most instrumental in “securing decisional prerogatives for patients in the face of the long tradition of medical paternalism [and] promoting respect for human subjects and reducing harm and abuse in medical research”); see id. (Jonsen) (describing research with fetal tissue, an issue that entered the public consciousness on account of Roe v. Wade, and defining death as being among the initial inquiries of bioethicists). Implicit in this analysis is the view that the considerable scholarship on the ethics of AIDS stands very much on its own, consistent with the claims and critiques of “AIDS exceptionalism,”– i.e., that legal, medical, and ethics scholars treated AIDS differently than other similar conditions. See, e.g., R. Bayer and A. Fairchild, “Changing the Paradigm for HIV Testing – The End of Exceptionalism,” New England Journal of Medicine 355, no. 7 (2006): 647–649; A. Etzioni, “HIV Sufferers Have a Responsibility,”Time, December 13, 1993, at 100 [essay] (arguing against the vigorous resistance to contact tracing and testing for HIV, noting that “if AIDS were any other disease – say, hepatitis B or tuberculosis – we would have no trouble (and indeed we have had none) introducing the necessary preventive measures”).</note> <part><date>2005</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>19</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>307</start><end>332</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Bioethics</title></titleInfo><part><date>2005</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>19</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>307</start><end>332</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit5"><titleInfo><title>See, e.g., E. Pellegrino and D. Thomasma, “The Good of Patients and the Good of Society: Striking a Moral Balance,” in M. Boylan, ed., Public Health Policy and Ethics (Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004): 17–37 (arguing that the clinician has a moral obligation to serve the good of the patient, even when doing so conflicts with the greater public good).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit6"><titleInfo><title>“New Malaise: Bioethics and Human Rights in the Global Era,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Farmer</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">N. Gastineau</namePart><namePart type="family">Campos</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">P. Farmer and N. Gastineau Campos, “New Malaise: Bioethics and Human Rights in the Global Era,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32, no. 2 (2004): 243–251, at 246 (arguing that it is not so much that bioethics has ignored the problems that afflict large populations but that bioethicists have simply not attended to the problems that afflict people who lack the opportunity to be patients: “[M]illions die – not from too much care or inappropriate care but rather from no care at all”). See also M. Selgelid, P. Kelly, and A. Sleigh, “TB Matters More,” in M. Boylan, ed., International Public Health Policy and Ethics (Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2008): at 233–247.</note><part><date>2004</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>32</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>243</start><end>251</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics</title></titleInfo><part><date>2004</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>32</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>243</start><end>251</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit7"><titleInfo><title>See Battin et al., supra note 1. See also G. Verma, R. Upshur, E. Rea, and S. Benatar, “Critical Reflections on Evidence, Ethics and Effectiveness in the Management of Tuberculosis: Public Health and Global Perspectives,” BMC Medical Ethics 5, no. 2 (2004): 2; C. Bryan, T. Call, and K. Elliott, “The Ethics of Infection Control: Philosophical Framework,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 28, no. 9 (2007): 1077–1084.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit8"><titleInfo><title>See Churchill, supra note 4; Jonsen, supra note 3.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit9"><titleInfo><title>“Individual Good and Common Good: A Communitarian Approach to Bioethics,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">D.</namePart><namePart type="family">Callahan</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">D. Callahan, “Individual Good and Common Good: A Communitarian Approach to Bioethics,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46, no. 4 (2003): 496–507.</note><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>46</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>496</start><end>507</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Perspectives in Biology and Medicine</title></titleInfo><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>46</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>496</start><end>507</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit10"><titleInfo><title>See Jonsen, supra note 3, at 332–334 (describing the history of the Belmont Report [1979] and its introduction of the three principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice as the framework for human subject research, and the publication later that same year of Beauchamp and Childress's text, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, in which they introduced the four principles we now call principlism).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit11"><titleInfo><title>See Pellegrino, supra note 5.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit12"><titleInfo><title>“Ethics Needs Principles – Four Can Encompass the Rest – and Respect for Autonomy Should Be ‘First among Equals,’”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">R.</namePart><namePart type="family">Gillon</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">R. Gillon, “Ethics Needs Principles – Four Can Encompass the Rest – and Respect for Autonomy Should Be ‘First among Equals,’” Journal of Medical Ethics 29, no. 5 (2003): 307–312; see Pellegrino and Thomasma, supra note 5 (“we have held that an authentic ethic of clinical medicine must have its roots in a philosophy of medicine in which the good of the patient determines the obligations and virtues of the health professional”).</note><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>307</start><end>312</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Medical Ethics</title></titleInfo><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>307</start><end>312</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit13"><titleInfo><title>Id.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit14"><titleInfo><title>See Davis, supra note 2 (“principlism…has, for several decades now, been dominant … in the clinical sphere, i.e., in relations between physicians and patients”).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit15"><titleInfo><title>See Gillon, supra note 12.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit16"><titleInfo><title>“Principlism and Communitarianism,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">D.</namePart><namePart type="family">Callahan</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">D. Callahan, “Principlism and Communitarianism,” Journal of Medical Ethics 29, no. 5 (2003): 287–291.</note><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>287</start><end>291</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Medical Ethics</title></titleInfo><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>287</start><end>291</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit17"><titleInfo><title>See Gillon, supra note 12.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit18"><titleInfo><title>“Individual Rights Versus Societal Duties,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">E.</namePart><namePart type="family">Vermeersch</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">E. Vermeersch, “Individual Rights Versus Societal Duties,” Vaccine 17, no. Supp. 3 (1999): S14–S17 (arguing that it is possible to justify public health interventions like vaccination without violating Mills’ strong anti‐paternalistic views).</note><part><date>1999</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>17</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. Supp. 3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>S14</start><end>S17</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Vaccine</title></titleInfo><part><date>1999</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>17</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. Supp. 3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>S14</start><end>S17</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit19"><titleInfo><title>See Verma et al., supra note 7.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit20"><titleInfo><title>Compare W. Parmet, “The Perils of Individualizing Public Health Problems,” Journal of Legal Medicine 30, no. 1 (2009): 83–108 (arguing against the individualization of disease, such as what she asserts was done in the Andrew Speaker case, on the grounds that the “infected individual becomes seen not as a disease's victim, but as its vector”) with Battin, supra, note 1 (articulating a theory of infectious disease that posits that people are simultaneously victims and vectors).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit21"><titleInfo><title>“Global Health Ethics: The Rationale for Mutual Caring,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">S.</namePart><namePart type="family">Benatar</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Daar</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Singer</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">S. Benatar, A. Daar, and P. Singer, “Global Health Ethics: The Rationale for Mutual Caring,” International Affairs 79, no. 21 (2003): 107–138. See also C. Sunstein, “Propter Honoris Respectum: Rights and Their Critics,”Notre Dame Law Review 70 (1995): 727–768 (describing the polarized debate as one in which rights are viewed as “individual, atomistic, selfish, crude, licentious, antisocial” and responsibilities as “collective, social, altruistic, nuanced, and associated with appropriate or traditional values”).</note><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>79</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 21</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>107</start><end>138</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>International Affairs</title></titleInfo><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>79</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 21</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>107</start><end>138</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit22"><titleInfo><title>As the SARS epidemic demonstrated, healthcare workers may be among those most vulnerable to being both victims and vectors of contagious diseases. See M. Rothstein, M. G. Alcalde, N. Elster, M. Anderlik Majumder, L. Palmer, T. H. Stone, and R. Hoffman, Quarantine and Isolation: Lessons Learned from SARS, A Report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 2003, at 55 (noting that “health care workers accounted for over 40% of all SARS patients in Toronto”). In an era in which the probability that patients are infected with a novel or drug‐resistant pathogen is on the rise, the lack of effective treatments and vaccines place health care workers in a kind of time warp in which they are practicing medicine more like their 19th‐ than their 20th‐century predecessors, a situation that few likely contemplated when they decided to pursue their professional degrees. See K. Sepkowitz, “One Disease, Two Epidemics – AIDS at 25,” New England Journal of Medicine 354, no. 23 (2006): 2411–2414 (noting that there has been an increase in the number of health care providers who have declined to treat patients with HIV for fear of contracting TB). This implicates questions about the moral obligation of practitioners to treat notwithstanding their risk of personal harm, as well as our obligation as patients and as a society to protect practitioners from undue risk. Although similar concerns were raised during the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the low chance of transmission led many to view those concerns as reflecting more anti‐gay animus than legitimate, evidence‐based health concerns. See, e.g., J. Arras, “The Fragile Web of Responsibility: AIDS and the Duty to Treat,” Hastings Center Report 18, no. 2 (April/May 1988): S10–S20. That gloss, combined with the differences in the risk of transmission between diseases like HIV, which are passed through an intimate exchange of fluids versus diseases like TB, SARS, or influenza that are passed via droplet nuclei, reduces the generalizable principles articulated in that literature.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit23"><titleInfo><title>M. Sandel, Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit24"><titleInfo><title>Id. See also A. Etzioni, “A Communitarian Approach: A Viewpoint on the Study of the Legal, Ethical and Policy Considerations Raised by DNA Tests and Databases,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34, no. 2 (2006): 214–221 (defining communitarianism as a “social philosophy that maintains that society should articulate what is good, and asserts that such articulations are both necessary and legitimate. Communitarianism is often contrasted with classical liberalism, a philosophical position that holds that individuals should formulate their idea of good on their own. Communitarians examine the ways shared conceptions of the good [values] are formed, transmitted, justified, and enforced”).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit25"><titleInfo><title>An example of other health policies that share these qualities and that might also benefit from a communitarian approach include the issue of organ donations and whether the presumption should continue to be set against post‐mortem donations or whether it is time that the presumption be switched toward donation.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit26"><titleInfo><title>“Law as a Tool in Promoting and Protecting Public Health: Always in Our Best Interests?”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">R.</namePart><namePart type="family">Martin</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">R. Martin, “Law as a Tool in Promoting and Protecting Public Health: Always in Our Best Interests?” Public Health 121, no. 11 (2007): 846–853.</note><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>121</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 11</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>846</start><end>853</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Public Health</title></titleInfo><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>121</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 11</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>846</start><end>853</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit27"><titleInfo><title>See Callahan, supra note 9.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit28"><titleInfo><title>“The Epistemology of Communitarian Bioethics: Traditions in the Public Debates,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Kuczewski</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">M. Kuczewski, “The Epistemology of Communitarian Bioethics: Traditions in the Public Debates,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22, no. 2 (2001): 135–150 (positing a theory of instrumental communitarianism in which “moral and religious traditions can effectively dialogue” through the use of “the exploration of shared intuitions that human beings have regarding particular examples, cases, or values”).</note><part><date>2001</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>22</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>135</start><end>150</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics</title></titleInfo><part><date>2001</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>22</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>135</start><end>150</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit29"><titleInfo><title>Indeed, because it does not prescribe what ought to constitute the common good, communitarianism permits the possibility that some combination of autonomy, beneficence, non‐maleficence, and justice may, in greater or lesser measure, represent its constituent parts. See, e.g., Etzioni, supra note 24, at 214 (applying communitarian principles to analyze the issue of DNA databases and placing considerable emphasis on the need to weigh individual “rights” against the good of the community and further recognizes that communitarians often “differ in the extent to which their conceptions are attentive to liberty and individual rights”).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit30"><titleInfo><title>“The Common Morality in Communitarian Thought: Reflective Consensus in Public Policy,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Kuczewski</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">M. Kuczewski, “The Common Morality in Communitarian Thought: Reflective Consensus in Public Policy,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30, no. 1 (2009): 49–52 (applying a communitarian approach to the question of whether there is an obligation to provide universal health insurance in the United States).</note><part><date>2009</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>30</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>49</start><end>52</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics</title></titleInfo><part><date>2009</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>30</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>49</start><end>52</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit31"><titleInfo><title>See Jonsen, supra note 3, at 333.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit32"><titleInfo><title>Minister of Health of the Provinces of the Western Cape v. Goliath, Case No. 13741/07, ¶ 14 (July 28, 2008), a case decided by the High Court of South Africa, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division. The facts used in this case study are taken quite directly from the pleadings with two exceptions intended to draw the moral issues more sharply into focus. First, although the case study suggests that the hospital intended to forcibly treat the respondents (forced treatment, unlike forced detention, being expressly contemplated under governing TB policy), the Minister of Health disclaimed any intention to do so. Second, with respect for the outcome of the case for Ms. Goliath, the suggestion that she might receive palliative care was never on the table because she died before the court issued its ruling.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit33"><titleInfo><title>Department of Health, South Africa, Draft Tuberculosis Strategic Plan for South Africa, 2007–2011, at § 6.6.2. The guidelines for the treatment of multi‐ and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis call for a minimum of a six‐month hospital stay, or until the individual has three negative sputum smears, a milestone that the state has deemed denotes less infectivity.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit34"><titleInfo><title>Department of Health, South Africa, DOTS‐Plus for Standardised Management of Multidrug‐Resistant Tuberculosis in South Africa: Policy Guidelines, January 2004.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit35"><titleInfo><title>“Applying the Four Principles,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">R.</namePart><namePart type="family">Macklin</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">R. Macklin, “Applying the Four Principles,” Journal of Medical Ethics 29, no. 5 (2003): 275–280 (emphasis in original). I recognize that there is some debate in the literature concerning whether the “respect for persons” principle and the principle of autonomy express exactly the same idea. For my purposes, I am satisfied that they do.</note><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>275</start><end>280</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Medical Ethics</title></titleInfo><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>275</start><end>280</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit36"><titleInfo><title>It is worth noting that this conflicts with current South African TB policy, which requires that individuals with XDR TB remain in the hospital and be treated until they are sputum smear negative.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit37"><titleInfo><title>See, e.g., R. Lindsay, “Bioethics Policies and the Compass of Common Morality,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30, no. 1 (2009): 31–43.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit38"><titleInfo><title>D. Tutu, No Future without Forgiveness (New York: Doubleday, 1999): at 31.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit39"><titleInfo><title>Port Elizabeth Municipality v. Various Occupiers, 2004 (53) (South Africa, Constitutional Court).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit40"><titleInfo><title>“Modeling Epidemics of Multidrug‐Resistant M. tuberculosis of Heterogeneous Fitness,”Nature MedicineJournal of Infectious Diseases</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">T.</namePart><namePart type="family">Cohen</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Murray</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Andrews</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">N.</namePart><namePart type="family">Gandhi</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Moodley</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">S.</namePart><namePart type="family">Shah</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">L.</namePart><namePart type="family">Bohlken</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Moll</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>other</genre><part><date>2004</date></part></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit41"><titleInfo><title>Id. (Andrews et al.)</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit42"><titleInfo><title>See S. Basu, J. Andrews, E. Poolman, N. Gandhi, S. Shah, and A. Moll et al., “Prevention of Nosocomial Transmission of Extensively Drug‐Resistant Tuberculosis in Rural South African District Hospitals: An Epidemiological Modeling Study,” The Lancet 370, no. 9597 (2007): 1500–1507.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit43"><titleInfo><title>To the extent that immunocompetent individuals are exposed to TB, the odds hover somewhere around 90% that the infection will lie dormant for the rest of their lives, and hence run only a small chance of developing active TB. For immunocompromised individuals, by contrast, the odds of acquiring an active case of TB are considerably higher, a consequence, it would appear, of it requiring many fewer “germs” to overwhelm the body's already weakened immune system's defenses. Because they can acquire an infection upon a lesser exposure, they appear therefore to carry a relatively low mycobacterial load, which translates into them being less likely to be able to readily transmit the disease to others. See M. Iseman, “An Unholy Trinity – Three Negative Sputum Smears and Release from Tuberculosis Isolation,” Clinical Infectious Diseases 25, no. 3 (1997): 671–672 [editorial] (asserting that “persons with AIDS and tuberculosis are clearly no more infectious – perhaps less so – than the typical, immunocompetent patients with pulmonary tuberculosis); G. Mixides, V. Shende, L. Teeter, R. Awe, J. Musser, and E. Graviss, “Number of Negative Acid‐Fast Smears Needed to Adequately Assess Infectivity of Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis,” Chest 128, no. 1 (2005): 108–115.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit44"><titleInfo><title>See Basu et al., supra note 42.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit45"><titleInfo><title>See generally, Lee v. Minister of Correctional Services, Case Number 10416/04 ZAWCHC (February 1, 2011), Western Cape High Court, Capetown, South Africa.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit46"><titleInfo><title>See Basu et al., supra note 42. A concrete cost analysis of this kind of intervention will require more study since to date, the use of trailers appears only to have been analyzed in the context of overflow capacity for pandemic planning.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit47"><titleInfo><title>See Mixides et al., supra note 43.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit48"><titleInfo><title>I am mindful of the difficulties and concerns involved in screening South Africans for HIV, including, for example, the fears described in Tina Rosenberg's article, “When a Pill Is Not Enough,”New York Times Magazine, August 6, 2006. However, if it were framed in terms of protecting people with HIV from opportunistic disease rather than protecting people from those infected with the virus, HIV screening might be viewed in a new light.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit49"><titleInfo><title>See Minister of Health of the Provinces of the Western Cape v. Goliath, supra note 32.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit50"><titleInfo><title>WHO Progress Report, “Towards Universal Access to Diagnosis and Treatment of Multi‐Drug Resistant and Extensively Drug‐Resistant Tuberculosis by 2015,” March 2011, at 2, 9; South Africa is one of the few countries out of the 27 with the highest burdens of M/XDR TB that was making strong progress toward the goal of universal access on the basis of domestic funds alone (i.e., without relying on grants from the Global Fund).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit51"><titleInfo><title>Lee v. Minister of Correctional Services, supra note 45, at ¶¶ 59–59.5, 238–270 (describing critical shortage of nurses in prison as a “time bomb”).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit52"><titleInfo><title>Although some scholars have proposed alternative ethical frameworks that might realize the goals I have outlined here, each takes a smorgasbord approach to a wide array of moral theories. I would argue that communitarianism provides a more coherent and simple approach by comparison, as well as one that neither presumptuously declares that certain values are held universally nor, in carefully declaring that certain values are held universally, fails for lack of specificity. See, e.g., M. S. Bosek, L. Burton, and T. Savage, “The Patient Who Could Not Be Discharged: How Far Should Autonomy Extend?” JONA's Healthcare Law, Ethics, and Regulation 1, no. 4 (1999): 23–30 (seeking to balance patient autonomy with clinical, societal and institutional concerns in case of abusive patient who is HIV+ and in need of dialysis with unconfirmed tuberculosis); P. Singer, S. Benatar, M. Bernstein, A. Daar, B. Dickens, and S. MacRae et al., “Ethics and SARS: Lessons from Toronto,” BMJ 327, no. 7427 (2003): 1342–1344 (identifying 10 core values, borrowed from human rights, bioethics, social justice and civil rights, which, the authors argue, together form a foundation for a public health ethic); see Bryan et al., supra note 7 (arguing for “a virtue‐based communitarianism [to] complement infection control policies and procedures based on rules (deontology) and results (consequentialism)”).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit53"><titleInfo><title>See Jonsen, supra note 3, at 332 (quoting Beauchamp and Childress in their discovery that “many forms of rule utilitarianism and rule deontology lead to identical rules and actions”). Indeed, some might view with skepticism any claim to moral legitimacy made by an ethical theory that produced wildly discordant results as compared to other more accepted theories.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit54"><titleInfo><title>R. Munson, Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics (St. Louis: University of Missouri, 2008): at 790–91.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit55"><titleInfo><title>See Callahan, supra note 9.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit56"><titleInfo><title>“Bioethics with a Difference: A Comment on Mcelhinney and Pellegrino,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">D.</namePart><namePart type="family">Thomasma</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">D. Thomasma, “Bioethics with a Difference: A Comment on Mcelhinney and Pellegrino,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22, no. 4 (2001): 287–290.</note><part><date>2001</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>22</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>287</start><end>290</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics</title></titleInfo><part><date>2001</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>22</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>287</start><end>290</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit57"><titleInfo><title>This danger is evidenced by Professor Wendy Parmet's critique of Professor Lawrence Gostin's use of the term, a critique that exhibits some internal inconsistency of its own. Parmet criticizes Gostin for ignoring the theory of “reciprocal obligations between citizens envisioned by communitarians,” yet her discussion of communitarianism suggests in at least one respect that it refers to a collection of individual agendas joined together to form a majoritarian agenda, a view that is no more grounded in reciprocal obligations than Gostin's. See W. Parmet, “Liberalism, Communitarianism, and Public Health: Comments on Lawrence O. Gostin's Lecture,” Florida Law Review 55, no. 5 (2003): 1221–1240.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit58"><titleInfo><title>See Callahan, supra note 9 (emphasis added).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit59"><titleInfo><title>See, e.g., R. Bayer, L. Gostin, B. Jennings, and B. Steinbock (eds.), Public Health Ethics: Theory, Policy, and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press: 2007).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit60"><titleInfo><title>S. Sherwin, No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics & Health Care (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit61"><titleInfo><title>“Medicine and Public Health, Ethics and Human Rights,”</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Mann</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><genre>journal-article</genre><note type="citation/reference">J. Mann, “Medicine and Public Health, Ethics and Human Rights,” Hastings Center Report 27, no. 3 (1997): 6–13.</note><part><date>1997</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>27</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>6</start><end>13</end></extent></part><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Hastings Center Report</title></titleInfo><part><date>1997</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>27</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>no. 3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>6</start><end>13</end></extent></part></relatedItem></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit62"><titleInfo><title>Cf. M. Rothstein, “Public Health Law, Society, and Ethics: Rethinking the Meaning of Public Health,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30, no. 1 (2002): 144–149 (critiquing those who sweep into the term “public health” anything and everything that is population related and advocating more limited conception of the term/field/practice); S. Gainotti, N. Moran, C. Petrini, and D. Shickle, “Ethical Models Underpinning Responses to Threats to Public Health: A Comparison of Approaches to Communicable Disease Control in Europe,” Bioethics 22, no. 8 (2008): 446–476 (suggesting that global possibilities of infectious disease “calls for new political practices based upon a renewed sense of ethical responsibility that requires nations to accurately share information about [global infectious diseases], to manage the spread of disease effectively and sometimes to impose rigorous quarantines”).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit63"><titleInfo><title>See Verma et al., supra note 7. See also J. Harris and S. Holm, “Is There a Moral Obligation Not to Infect Others?” BMJ 311, no. 7014 (1995): 1215–1217 (arguing that although there is a “strong prima facie” duty not to communicate disease, it is unreasonable to hold people to that duty unless the state provides “protection and compensation”).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit64"><titleInfo><title>Id. (Harris and Holm).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit65"><titleInfo><title>M. Rothstein, “Are Traditional Public Health Strategies Consistent with Contemporary American Values?”Temple Law Review 77 (2004): 175–192 (comparing compliance with measures such as quarantine and isolation, which are protective of third parties, in traditionally “communitarian” countries versus countries like the United States).</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit66"><titleInfo><title>M. Parker and D. Dickenson, The Cambridge Medical Ethics Workbook: Case Studies, Commentaries and Activities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001): at 307 (“Feminists, for example, have argued that, whilst communitarianism is very good at describing the benefits of community, it says very little about the damage cause by families and communities and says nothing for those at the periphery of societies for whom we expect moral theory to have special concern. Taken to its logical conclusion, communitarianism seems capable of justifying the oppression of minorities and of the weak by the majority, of the novel by the traditional.”)</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit67"><titleInfo><title>See Lindsay, supra note 37, at 31–43.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit68"><titleInfo><title>See Kuczewski, supra note 30.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit69"><titleInfo><title>D. Karp, “Americans as Communitarians: An Empirical Study,” in A. Etzioni, A. Volmert, and E. Rothschild, eds., The Communitarian Reader: Beyond the Essentials (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: 2004): at 129.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><relatedItem type="references" displayLabel="cit70"><titleInfo><title>Id., at 135. For example, participants were given three ways of defining “good citizenship:” (1) contributing to one's community (defined as the communitarian position); (2) obeying the law (defined as the social conservative position); and (3) providing for oneself and one's family (defined as the individualist position). The answers were fairly split between the first two positions, with 34%, with the individualist position receiving slightly less support at 27%. Id., at 131.</title></titleInfo><genre>other</genre></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">FA496EF737F08B292505E500FB0C470077AD4B67</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00635.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JLME635</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2011 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Converted from (version ) to MODS version 3.6.</recordOrigin><recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2019-11-15</recordCreationDate></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-802DR2NS-5/record.json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/SrasV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001A34 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001A34 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Sante
|area= SrasV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:FA496EF737F08B292505E500FB0C470077AD4B67
|texte= Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |