Guidelines For Allocation Of Publicly Offered Capacities Resulting From A Potential: Fill & Download for Free

Building wealth is simple.It doesn’t require luck, genius, or special connections.You don’t have to attend overpriced weekend financial seminars or learn the latest tricks and gimmicks sold by slick marketers.As John Bogle wisely stated, “The secret is there are no secrets.”The truth behind how to build wealth is public domain knowledge, simple to understand, and nobody is going to get rich selling it to you.In fact, it’s so simple it can be explained in just two sentences:Make more than you spend and invest the difference wisely.Develop simple daily habits that result in wealth accumulation.I know… you’re probably a little disappointed.You wanted something new, different, and clever – the missing ingredient that has held you back and will produce breakthrough results. The fabled “secret” every marketer tries to sell.Instead, I give you something dangerously close to what Grandma would have said.But listen to the voice of experience. I’ve coached hundreds of people from debtors to the wealthy, and the pattern is unmistakable.And it’s not just me singing this song. These same truths were taught by Benjamin Franklin hundreds of years earlier and reiterated by numerous authorities ever since.It’s timeless wisdom that has been proven over the centuries, and will also probably work for you (if you just put it into practice).In short, if you want wealth in this lifetime with the highest probability of success, then these two sentences contain the essential wisdom you need to know.Build wealth easily by following these two simple guidelines.Spend Less Than You Make and Invest the Difference WiselyThe first sentence summarizes how to manage your personal finances so that you grow assets.It explains the importance of creating positive cash flow that you invest to produce additional positive cash flow.Notice how it’s composed of three separate yet connected ideas to form a single concept:Spend lessEarn moreInvest wiselyThere are endless variations on how to achieve this objective, but they all follow two simple themes:You can reduce spending immediately through various forms of frugality.You can increase your income through various strategies including changing jobs, getting a raise, or starting a business.In short, you must create a gap between how much you earn and how much you spend that results in savings to invest for growth and additional income.The twin themes of spending less and making more are not mutually exclusive, but they do require very different mindsets.Frugality is about living on less and requires self-discipline. For most people, there is a feeling of sacrifice when following this path, thus making it difficult to succeed.If that’s you, then frugality is a slow and difficult path to wealth because you will be in constant battle between lifestyle desires and financial freedom goals.For others, frugality is a pleasurable journey in simplification where fulfillment results from redirecting earned income toward financial freedom goals rather than squandering it on spending.It’s not uncommon for extreme frugalists to save 70% of income and achieve financial independence in less than 10 years, but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.Another alternative is to raise the income side of the equation. The advantage to this approach is there is no theoretical limitation to how fast your wealth can grow because your earning capacity is unlimited.Many wealth gurus teach the income side of the equation as the “fast path” to wealth; however, if you don’t master the spending side of the equation, you still run a high risk of failure due to the all-too-common mistake of allowing spending to rise as fast as income.The greatest wealth builders focus on both sides of the equation together. They maximize savings by controlling spending while growing income at the same time.It’s the quickest, most certain path to increased savings for investment.Great wealth builders focus on both saving money and earning more.The third component to the equation – invest wisely – is also simple because everything you need to learn is available for free in the public domain.You don’t have to take investment seminars or build extraordinary expertise. There are two well proven paths:Paper Assets: Conventional buy and hold using low cost index funds and proven asset allocation models. Vanguard Funds offers you everything you need.Real Estate: Direct ownership of positive cash flow real estate in your local area.In summary, achieving financial freedom is really quite simple.Spend less than you make and invest the difference wisely.Rinse and repeat until the income from your investments exceeds your expenses. At that point you’re infinitely wealthy and financially independent.Want to know the secret to building wealth? It's a lot easier than you think - it just requires knowledge of two basic personal finance principles, and a plan on how to live by them. Get that plan here.With that said, the sad truth is few will achieve financial freedom despite the desirability of the goal and the simple path you must follow to achieve it.The reason is explained in the second sentence.Your Wealth Is Determined by Your HabitsThe reason so few people achieve wealth is because they don’t adopt habits that lead to wealth.As you already know, the formula is simple and fully proven. The only thing remaining is to take action with enough consistency to achieve the goal… and that’s where the problems occur.Here’s the formula for how this works:[(Small, Smart Choices) * (Consistency) * (Time)] = WealthProcrastination is the single biggest wealth killer. You plan on getting around to it someday. You know what you should do but there is always some other priority. The kids need braces, the car needs repair, the kitchen needs remodeling.Action is where the rubber meets the road. It’s one thing to know what to do, and it’s something else entirely to get it done. That’s why habits are so critical.Habits are the reason postal workers become millionaires while lottery winners go broke.It doesn’t matter if you look at the writings of Benjamin Franklin from 250 years ago or Stanley and Danko’s bestseller The Millionaire Next Door.They all say essentially the same thing – the distinguishing characteristic of people who achieve wealth is they manage their money well. They have good money habits.They don’t earn the most. They aren’t the smartest. They don’t have any special training. They just have good money habits – brain dead simple.The reason good money habits are essential is actually scientific and results from the mathematics behind how money compounds to grow into wealth.Small changes done over long periods of time can create massive results. It’s an easy path to wealth.That’s why daily habits are so important.A daily habit of frugality saves small amounts every day that compound and grow over long periods of time to become substantial wealth. Try this Latte Factor calculator to prove it to yourself.A daily habit of increasing your earning capacity through training and education will add small amounts every day to your income potential.Small changes done over long periods of time can create massive wealth.Both of these daily habits will create an increasing spread between what you spend and what you earn, which will increase your wealth at an accelerating rate.This isn’t rocket science. It’s just daily habits dedicated toward a specific goal – building wealth.The habit causes the action which produces the result. It’s simple cause and effect.Habits are the easiest and simplest way for you to cross the bridge between how to build wealth using the simple formula above, and actually doing what it takes to achieve the goal.You don’t have to intellectualize the process or overcome massive obstacles. You don’t have to get ready to get ready.Instead, you just start today by adopting one habit that serves your wealth goals. Here are some potential starting points:Opt-in to your company 401(k) (if they offer it).Prepay a small amount on your mortgage.Find an unnecessary expense and eliminate it.Clean up clutter by selling unused assets (RV, boat, jewelry, etc.).Repair something instead of replacing it.Develop a niche expertise in your profession that commands a higher wage.Start learning about asset allocation or investment real estate.Just pick one habit and start today. Practice the habit until it becomes permanent, then pick another habit and do it again. Then another and another until you can see your wealth grow.Pick ONE wealth building habit to develop today to get started on your journey to financial freedomThe greatest obstacle to building wealth is procrastination. Habits are the simplest way to overcome procrastination and get into immediate action.Habits reduce the entire wealth building process into bite-sized pieces that are easy for anyone to digest. The compounded effect of all these tiny actions over a lifetime becomes wealth.Want to know the secret to building wealth? It's a lot easier than you think - it just requires knowledge of two basic personal finance principles, and a plan on how to live by them. Get that plan here.Summary of How To Build WealthThe formula for wealth is simple: spend less than you make and invest the difference wisely.The mechanism to take action on the formula and produce results is equally simple: adopt wealth building habits.Here’s how it looks in a different format: [(Small, Smart Choices) * (Consistency) * (Time)] = WealthThe only question remaining is whether or not you will do what it takes.The only thing standing between you and wealth is the willingness to act on this timeless wisdom.

“These principles include (1) autonomy, (2) beneficence, (3) nonmaleficence, and (4) justice. ...” 4. The Principles of Healthcare Ethics.“1. Autonomy: In medicine, autonomy refers to the right of the patient to retain control over his or her body. A health care professional can suggest or advise, but any actions that attempt to persuade or coerce the patient into making a choice are violations of this principle. In the end, the patient must be allowed to make his or her own decisions – whether or not the medical provider believes these choices are in that patient’s best interests – independently and according to his or her personal values and beliefs.2. Beneficence: This principle states that health care providers must do all they can to benefit the patient in each situation. All procedures and treatments recommended must be with the intention to do the most good for the patient. To ensure beneficence, medical practitioners must develop and maintain a high level of skill and knowledge, make sure that they are trained in the most current and best medical practices, and must consider their patients’ individual circumstances; what is good for one patient will not necessary benefit another.3. Non-Maleficence: Non-maleficence is probably the best known of the four principles. In short, it means, “to do no harm.” This principle is intended to be the end goal for all of a practitioner’s decisions, and means that medical providers must consider whether other people or society could be harmed by a decision made, even if it is made for the benefit of an individual patient.4. Justice: The principle of justice states that there should be an element of fairness in all medical decisions: fairness in decisions that burden and benefit, as well as equal distribution of scarce resources and new treatments, and for medical practitioners to uphold applicable laws and legislation when making choices.” How the Four Principles of Health Care Ethics Improve Patient CareA COMPLETE COURSE FOLLOWS!How the Four Principles of Health Care Ethics Improve Patient CareAbstract: BackgroundTeaching ethics in public health programmes is not routine everywhere – at least not in most schools of public health in the European region. Yet empirical evidence shows that schools of public health are more and more interested in the integration of ethics in their curricula, since public health professionals often have to face difficult ethical decisions.DiscussionThe authors have developed and practiced an approach to how ethics can be taught even in crowded curricula, requiring five to eight hours of teaching and learning contact time. In this way, if programme curricula do not allow more time for ethics, students of public health can at least be sensitised to ethics and ethical argumentation. This approach – focusing on the application of seven mid-level principles to cases (non-maleficence, beneficence, health maximisation, efficiency, respect for autonomy, justice, proportionality) – is presented in this paper. Easy to use ‘tools’ applying ethics to public health are presented.Summary: BackgroundThe context for teaching ethics in public healthOur purpose in this paper is to explain and discuss a framework for a university-based short course in public health ethics. The framework has been developed and employed now in several European universities and schools of public health, including the Ecole des hautes études en santé publique (France), Maastricht University (the Netherlands), and Bielefeld University (Germany). We begin by discussing some aspects of the context for teaching public health ethics that were important in our deliberations on why and how to engage in such teaching: and which formed fundamental starting points in the development of our framework. We then move on to explain and elucidate the mid-level ethical principles that form the content cornerstone of the framework; and the educational approach that it attempts to model. Crucially, we are not setting out simply to offer a description of what we have done but instead to analyse, discuss and ultimately attempt to justify both content and educational approach.Public health professionals are frequently called upon in their daily practice to make both explicit and implicit choices that extend beyond the objective and practical and into the contested and ethical [1]. Balancing and coming to conclusions about the rights and duties of individuals, communities, populations and governments with regard to protecting and maintaining health is in many ways the central, deeply complex task of public health work [2]. Yet at the same time, evidence strongly suggests that public health professionals often receive little training and guidance on how to reach decisions informed by careful ethical thinking and become confident in a moral sense about the ‘trade-offs’ they are frequently required to make in practice [1, 3].Often facing difficult decisions without adequate training and preparation in an ethical sense is, therefore, a feature of the public health context that motivated us to think carefully about addressing this subject through teaching and learning. We were well aware of the pressures contributing to this state of affairs. These included the already crowded nature of the public health university curriculum and the difficulty of simply employing dominant conceptions of ‘medical ethics’ to a field with (at least in many respects) quite different concerns and priorities [4]. Moreover, knowledge about, and evaluation of, ethics education in teaching and learning about public health (in contrast to ethics in medical education) remains comparatively scarce [3, 5].Given these contextual issues, we were faced with an important set of questions: on what sorts of foundations should teaching and learning about public health ethics be based? How should teaching and learning in this field be enacted? What are the justifications for particular educational approaches? How can hard-pressed practitioners be sensitised to the idea that ethics permeates everything they do and that ultimately their enterprise is a moral one?DiscussionContent foundations for teaching and learning in public health ethics: the choice of mid-level principlesTeaching and learning in public health ethics involves making choices about what to teach, as well as how to teach it. The brief description and discussion of context that we have so far engaged in leads us towards beginning to describe and discuss our choices in relation to what we actually teach about.The starting point for our discussion about the content of public health teaching is our belief that those engaged in it (both as teachers and learners) need to discriminate between and evaluate a complex range of normative judgments. Those who are working in public health are rarely doing so without having taken up normative positions on the purpose of the enterprise and the nature of its particular interventions and activities. They are operating with certain beliefs about, for example, the kind of society that public health should be aiming to reproduce [6] or about the sorts of ways in which individuals, communities or populations should lead their lives [7]. So an important outcome of teaching and learning in public health ethics is the capacity to make reasoned evaluations of the range of normative beliefs and values at work in the field.As a discipline, ethics is also itself (at least in part) normative. It is about identifying and attempting to agree the importance of particular values (or kinds of values) [8]: and how and why separate values might influence decisions and choices about action. So those involved in teaching public health ethics have a further task of evaluation and discrimination: between the competing normative systems and judgments of moral philosophers themselves.In fact, the tasks of evaluating normative beliefs within public health on the one hand, and normative judgments made by philosophers on the other, are complementary, indeed intertwined. The foundations of value-based decisions in public health (as with the broader field of health care and medicine more generally) lie in moral philosophical conceptions of what is valuable [9]. This leads us to the view that our framework for public health ethics teaching and learning should be based on a set of mid-level ethical principles, and critical appraisal and evaluation of these principles.What do we mean by mid-level principles and why have we chosen them to form the central content of our framework? Such principles represent normative thinking that might stem from more than one moral philosophical theory and thus can be connected back to several theories. They are at the mid-point of a hierarchy that at its top is formed of overarching theories that attempt to explain and justify particular normative positions (for example, deontology and the pre-eminence of duty in moral consideration, or theories that focus on the importance of consequences in ethical deliberation); and at its bottom comprises a range of particular rules (expressed, say, through devices such as codes of conduct).We argue here that because the principles are mid-level, and hold connections both with a number of normative theories and with the multiple prescriptions of codes and guidelines, they therefore garner wide acceptance [9]. The importance of individual principles such as we are advocating is also demonstrated by their being reflected in significant parts of the bioethics and public health ethics literature [9–13]. Thus the selection of these principles finds support and reflects positive experience in practice, as one of the authors of this current paper has established in previous work [14]. Equally, such principles may not command complete acceptance and can be challenged [15], making them highly useful in terms of encouragement for reflection and debate.This combination of acceptability on the one hand and the potential for helpful challenge on the other provides justification for our choice of such principles. Given the major task of ‘squeezing ethics in’ to the crowded public health curriculum, employing them to provide the content foundation of our course framework allowed the opportunity for fairly swift appreciation of their relevance in the short time that we had available; while also proposing them as stimulators of more lengthy reflection, possibly undertaken outside and beyond formal class hours. Our choice aligns with the deliberations of the seminal Belmont Report:‘[R]ules often are inadequate to cover complex situations; at times they come into conflict, and they are frequently difficult to interpret or apply. Broader ethical principles will provide a basis on which specific rules may be formulated, criticised and interpreted’ [16].This justification of the use of mid-level principles as the content foundation of our teaching, and their location in a hierarchy of normative ethical theorising and judgment, leads us briefly to describing and discussing the principles themselves. Because of their place in the hierarchy, we need to note that an important anticipated outcome of our teaching and learning will be that students should be able to link the principles to overarching theories that exist ‘above’ them. Our particular concern is to encourage students towards recognising, understanding and critically appraising the principles’ connections to consequentialist theories (the value of an action lies in the good or bad consequences that it produces) such as utilitarianism; and deontology (the worth of an action lies prior to any consideration of its particular consequences and instead on its performance as a duty).We follow Beauchamp and Childress [9] not only in their account of mid-level principles but also as conceiving of them as being prima facie: each of equal weight at the outset of moral deliberation. Naturally, during the course of such deliberation, it is both possible and likely that a particular principle or principles will assume more or less importance. Thus the prima facie status of the principles, in our view, supports the process of careful ethical deliberation and reflection; answers are not ready made from the outset and choices have to be formulated.There are seven principles that form the content grounds of our teaching framework:Non-maleficenceThe principle of non-maleficence – do no harm – asserts that a health care professional should act in such a way that he or she does no harm, even if her or his patient or client requests this [9]. This principle is the first to be proposed because of its historical antecedence; it is related to the famous Hippocratic ‘primum nil nocere’– first of all, do no harm’ of medical ethics, although not identical to it [9, 17, 18]. Within public health policy and practice, there are often occasions where degrees of harm are ‘traded off’ against the possibilities of greater harms, or perhaps positive benefit: for example, banning smoking in public places may cause harm to individual smokers but will prevent greater harms (and arguably produce benefit) through acting as a general disincentive to smoking among the wider population. Consideration of the non-maleficence principle shifts – at least – the burden of proof to those exercising potentially harmful behaviour that they are justified in doing so.2. BeneficenceThe obligation to produce benefit, for individual patients or clients, as we have implied above, is intimately connected to non- maleficence. Its apparently self- evident importance marks it out as the other core principle within the Hippocratic tradition: physicians should heal and help their patients, according to the physician’s abilities and judgment [19]. The distinctive difference between the principle of non-maleficence on the one hand and that of beneficence on the other lies in the fact that the former frequently – but not always – involves the omission of harmful action and the latter active contribution towards the welfare of others [9].3. Health maximisationNon-maleficence and beneficence can be understood in both deontological and consequentialist terms. Yet as principles they do not seem to go to the core of public health values. This is at least partly because of their tendency to be associated with, and used in trying to analyse, individual professional-client encounters. Even when following beneficence and non-maleficence in these individual encounters, it does not necessarily mean that population health is maximised, as the population is not at all within the focus of these micro- encounters. In the field of public health, the primary end sought is the health of the broader constituency of the public and improvements to this are the key outcome used to measure success [10]. In fact, the maximisation of population health, on the one hand, and beneficence and non-maleficence, on the other hand, can come into conflict.One way of conceiving of the moral impulse of beneficence in public health terms is therefore to understand the ethical imperative to produce benefit in a wider sense and to talk of the obligation to ‘social beneficence’. Here we are thinking of the idea that public health professionals have an obligation to maximise health in the populations for which they are responsible. In fact, our preference is for the ethical principle underscoring this obligation to be referred to as one of health maximisation. This is because we need to be more specific than simply saying public health professionals have a duty to produce benefit (implied by the idea of ‘social beneficence’). What constitutes benefit (at both individual but especially at population level) is subject to dispute and may not necessarily be understood as ‘health’. It seems perverse to claim that public health professionals are primarily interested in other kinds of benefit over and above maximising health and opportunities for health; thus a specific principle of health maximisation, we argue, needs to constitute the third of the mid-level principles that form the content grounds of our short course teaching and learning. Of course, none of this is to deny the disputability of the concept of health, and the possibility of profound disagreement about what exactly it is that we are attempting to maximise [20]. There is a strong requirement to focus on maximising (population) health rather than on wider concepts of the “(common) good” (whatever is understood by this), which might well be outside the scope of public health. We will return to this point later in our discussion.4. EfficiencyThere will always be more health need than resources to deal with that need. Literally all public health systems (and health care systems) worldwide lack resources. These two statements prompt the advocacy of a moral duty to use scarce health resources efficiently. This duty exists at least partly because efficient use will enable public health professionals to produce more health benefit for greater numbers of people. So a moral principle of efficiency would demand, for example, the use of the evidence base and the performance of cost-benefit analyses to decide what should be done and how to do it.As with the problematic of agreeing on the exact nature of the ‘health’ that we are supposed to be maximising in the previous principle, however, there is an equal difficulty here. ‘Efficiency’, along with associated notions such as ‘cost’ and ‘benefit’ are complex matters. For example, in considering the cost and benefit of undertaking (or not undertaking) a particular public health intervention, are we limiting our views of these things simply to the health sector or to the effect of the intervention on the wider social fabric and governance of public services? Moreover, it is conceivable to imagine limited or no action in the public health field as constituting ‘efficiency’ in the sense of negligible resource input yielding negligible returns but the cost-benefit ratio appearing reasonable in solely economic terms. Here we need to emphasise that the principle of efficiency has moral applicability, which needs to be disentangled from other considerations of efficiency, such as economics. (Efficiency is frequently linked to notions of ‘effectiveness’. We chose not to include ‘effectiveness’ as an explicit principle because it is somewhat implicit in the principle of health maximisation, and the strong sense this particular principle conveys that ethical public health action should naturally entail improvement in population health).5. Respect for autonomyThe paternalistic benevolence contained in the principles of non-maleficence and beneficence is strongly tempered by the emphasis on respect for the autonomy of the patient who the health care professional is seeking to serve [9, 21]. The principle of respect for autonomy extends, however, beyond the confines of individual health care; it is crucially important within the public health context. The frequent focus of public health on benefit for populations holds the potential for concern with individual welfare to be side- lined. Embedding respect for autonomy firmly within public health ethics teaching and learning provides a fundamental reminder that every person has a high value – qua her or his autonomy – and cannot merely be treated as a means to the end of others’ good. Despite this, however, the tension between individual rights and broader conceptions of public benefit is a profound one for public health as a field of practice. This tension, and the relative command that such broader conceptions of benefit often seem to possess, leads us to assert that in cases where autonomy restriction for wider public health goals is being contemplated (e.g. legislation banning smoking in public places or limiting movement during periods of contagion), the burden of proof for doing so needs always to lie with those advocating restriction.6. JusticeIt is equally possible to conceive of the principle of justice (sometimes ‘social justice’) as having grounds in the fundamental value of human autonomy. Because as humans we all have (or should have) autonomy, we all have (or should have) equal moral worth. Thus, proposals for the unequal treatment of people again require the burden of proof. Justice, to the contrary, demands equal opportunities. This also includes a fair distribution of health outcomes in societies, which is often discussed in terms of public health as ‘health equity’. In a very prominent conception of justice in the context of health, Daniels [13] considers health equity thus a matter of fairness and justice. Under Daniels’ conception of justice, health inequalities are unfair and unjust – and thus in conflict with health equity – if the socially controllable factors that lead to health are not distributed in such a way that the health of all citizens is protected or restored as much as possible.Given the essential importance of health in the formation and development of every aspect of our equally valuable human lives – what Boorse [22] describes as ‘species typical functioning’ – we owe each other equal access to health goods and positive determinants of health [13]. Justice is also the principle that covers normative aspects that are often discussed in the terminology of solidarity and reciprocity. Justice does so by giving an answer to the question of what we owe to each other [13]. To have a concise set of principles, we focus only on justice.7. ProportionalityOur seventh and final principle differs somewhat from those preceding it. As a principle, proportionality is certainly normative. It demands that in weighing and balancing individual freedom against wider social goods, considerations will be made in a proportionate way. According to Childress et al., proportionality:‘Is essential to show that the probable public health benefits outweigh the infringed general moral considerations […]. For instance, the policy may breach autonomy or privacy and have undesirable consequences. All positive features and benefits must be balanced against the negative features and effects […]’ [10: 173, our italics].However, proportionality is also a methodological principle. In a manner different to the principles we have so far discussed, it forms the basis for casuistic reasoning in relation to problems of individual welfare versus collective benefit in public health. Singer et al. [11], for example, argue that revelations of Chinese ethnicity in the Canadian outbreak of SARS demonstrate the need for fundamentally careful consideration before the release of private information in cases of pandemic disease. Beyond this, the balancing of private goods and public interests provides a way into debating many of the central problems of ethics in public health policy and practice such as resource allocation, the location of individual responsibility and foundational rights in the sphere of health and health care. It is this idea of debating the proportionality of interventions, and the help it offers in advancing understanding of situations, that leads us to our conception of the principle as partly methodological. Even though a methodological principle, it is normative nevertheless, and thus we include it in our concise set of principles: as with the other principles so far discussed, it contains essential prima facie moral guidance for public health practitioners.Process foundations for teaching and learning in public health ethics: case studies and problem based-learningHaving outlined and discussed the seven principles that form the content basis of teaching on our short course, we turn now to describing and discussing the processes for teaching and learning related to these content foundations. Our approach can be summarised as the use of case studies to stimulate debate and discussion around the principles that we have identified and discussed. The intention of case study-based debate is to allow reflection and awareness that ethical difficulties in public health are not ‘black and white’; we cannot expect easy answers, or possibly any definite answers at all [9, 23, 24].Why case studies?Case studies in this context are short narratives describing a real-world or at least realistic example of a professional ethical dilemma. Case studies have a central role in the process of teaching and learning that aims to build the capacity of moral awareness and discrimination. The use of case studies has been widespread and successful in various areas of medical ethical education generally [25] and bioethics more particularly [26]. They also have a history of success in public health, in particular public health ethical-scientific discourse [27].The narratives embodied in case studies help to identify and illustrate ethical difficulties. Case studies, with their obvious focus on practice and practical examples, can help to unpack difficulty that is simply impossible through purely abstract ethical reasoning or generalised philosophical examples. They also offer the possibility of genuinely inter-disciplinary dialogue between public health practitioners and moral philosophers (both likely to be involved in ethics-related teaching and learning in this field), at least partly because they are ‘acceptable currency’ to both sets of people. The requirement for inter- disciplinary dialogue extends, moreover, beyond simply public health practitioners and moral philosophers to a range of others (for example, politicians and policy makers) simply by virtue of what public health is and what it tries to do.Case studies are not simply ‘administered’. Their form demands, and their function yields, dynamic group discussions in which the participants’ specific professional and personal experience can be brought to bear on the problem highlighted within the case concerned.An important benefit of a case study-type approach centrally embedded in public health ethics teaching and learning is that it allows access to an enormous range of sources and experience. There is perhaps a tendency to think of case studies as artefacts solely designed by those charged with the teaching and learning process. Of course, the development and use of case studies designed by those teaching short courses in ethics is important. But student-generated experience as material for case studies is equally, if not more, valuable because it is rooted in the professional lives of learners. Sources such as books (both fiction and non-fiction) and films are also rich veins that can be tapped in the search for source material for ethics-related case studies [28, 29].Case studies as an aid to problem-based learning: the schedule for a short course in public health ethicsHaving described the value of case studies for public health ethics teaching and learning in terms of their relevance, applicability and capacity to encourage inter-disciplinary dialogue, we now turn to exemplifying a schedule for a short course in this area. In doing so, we start to draw out the central importance of problem-based teaching and learning in our schema. (Please see Table 1 for a summary of this schedule).Table 1Phases of a public health ethics coursePhase What How Who Time1. What implications can different understandings of “health” and “public” have for public health ethical discourses? What is ethics and how can it be useful for public health practice? (Interactive) Lecture Facilitator-led 3-4 hours (opportunity to go into greater depth with normative scope and ethical foundation of principles)Introduction of: Ethical principles, checklist, scheme for ethical judgement formation (Table 2).2. Exploring and critically examining possible scenarios for resolving a case together Group discussion, led by facilitator Facilitator and all students3. Solving a case study 1) Identification of the ethical challenge and conflict, 2) phrasing it in ethical language, 3) suggesting a solution by developing an ethical judgement based on an ethical argument (cf. Table 2). Groups of students (4-6 in one group), facilitator goes from group to group to check if there are questions. At least 1-2 hours4. Presentation of resultsPresentation in class by representative(s) of groups,discussion of group results.Students;facilitator participates in discussions.1-2 hours (with more lengthy discussions)In a first phase, our course begins with an introductory discussion focusing particularly on the concept of public health. What do we mean by this and in particular, what do we mean by its two constituent words, ‘public’ and ‘health’? Understanding these terms has essential relevance to ethics-related discussion of the field. The term ‘public’, for example, could be understood as the subject of action (the public being represented by public institutions) or as the object of action (someone acting to protect or improve the public’s health or pursuing a public good) [14, 30, 31]. Furthermore, different conceptions and criteria of health exist. Equally, students need to be encouraged to develop an awareness that how they understand ‘health’ (both generally and in the context of public health particularly) will have implications for how they frame ethical discourses and move towards resolving moral problems. Yet the task of defining and describing ‘health’ itself is complex and ridden with competing values [32, 33]. As a consequence, the concept of public health can also be interpreted differently [34, 35]. Encouragement is made towards the idea that our understanding of the term ‘public health’ and its constituents ’public’ and ‘health’ is likely to be neither wholly objective nor completely neutral; our talk is always (at least partly) driven by ideology [13, 20, 22].Debate about the nature of health and its relation to allied concepts such as well-being, illness, disease and disability is important both to help frame and understand the discussions that follow; and also to prompt at the earliest stage of the course dialogue between its participants. Our experience is that those undertaking the kind of course we describe may enter it believing that they broadly share similar conceptions of ‘health’ and ‘public health’. This may of course be true, but we have found that going back to first principles in the way that we have described is often a means to exposing differences in understanding, which warrant fruitful exploration as part of the ethics-focused debate that follows.After this introductory session, we move on to begin discussion of ethics, focusing on its capacity to inform decision-making [36]. Our concern is to present ethics as a systematic field of study and a major historical contributor to the development and shaping of society. We also attempt to explain and clarify the normative character of much ethical thinking, a central feature of its character that is likely to differ from other fields and disciplines with which participants may be more familiar. Although of course we have so far argued that much public health practice is predicated on normative assumptions and beliefs, this is not often rendered visible. Perhaps the greatest difference between the discipline of ethics and other potential disciplinary contributors to the public health curriculum lies in the normative focus of ethics being explicit.Ethical argument and resulting positions are generally driven by the belief that this is the way that things ought to be in the world [37]. This is the essential meaning of normativity in ethics. Public health practitioners – our course participants – may struggle with the move from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ that is this central characteristic of normative ethics. They are likely to be much more familiar with fields and disciplines in which evidence is developed and presented: and arguments may be made for a particular position; but normative declarations are not (or at least not often) made in relation to these processes. To take a brief example, a public health practitioner may, in his or her practice or other study, have gathered evidence for the existence of inequalities in health. They will most likely have views on what this evidence implies for the lives of individuals and populations. But it is unlikely (other than perhaps in a personal sense), that they would have been required to develop a normative argument related to inequalities (e.g. health inequalities should be regarded as morally unacceptable when the determinants of these inequalities are avoidable). Ethics easily assumes this latter kind of position, but reaching it may be unfamiliar for our participants.This example emphasises the importance of our problem-based learning approach within this course. By confronting our participants with a problem and asking what should be done, and, importantly, what we need to explore and understand better to be able to justify such action, they are guided, or hopefully guide themselves, through an essential process. This is the process that requires them to account for, and come to conclusions about, not simply their knowledge and understanding of the issue being considered, but also their experience (or potential experience) of that issue. This connection of knowledge, understanding and experience is likely to yield different positions and conclusions than one founded simply on cognition. It is likely to allow and facilitate the adoption of normative positions (this is what I should do, or what I should believe), which can then be subject to scrutiny. This is because we are ‘allowing’ the expression of values through emphasising the importance of experience (that on which, in large part, our values are founded) [38].At the same time, students will need points of reference and justification for the ethical positions that they are constructing through their consideration of problems and cases. Thus, the step of our teaching and learning is to introduce the principles (as described and discussed above) that provide normative guidance (and which of course have been developed through the lengthy application of careful thinking related to the nature and purpose of health care, among other areas of human endeavour). Developing thinking about practical experience (either one’s own, or in a vicarious sense) and striving for justifications or actions – or omissions – forms the essence of ethical deliberation. This is practiced in discussing a case together (see phase 2, Table 1).As we made clear in the introduction to this paper, balancing possible courses of action and coming to conclusions about what should be done is a key feature of professional life in public health. These conclusions are not simply (or even most importantly) practical ones; they are ethical. Our interest in developing the course we are describing and discussing emerged from a belief that frequently there is little or no training or preparation for ethical thinking and understanding in the process of the formation of public health professionals. In our course up to this point, we have demonstrated the need for this understanding, proposed both tools (the principles) and methods (the use of case studies and the application of problem-based learning in the context of the methodology of ethics) and are now at the final stage of applying these.In this next phase, students are divided into small groups of between four and six, depending on overall group size. Each group receives a different case study, which illustrates an underlying ethical problem or conflict. (Please see Case study: Maria Morales for one example case study used by the authors in their teaching and learning). They also receive a hand out that is their ‘toolbox’ for approaching and dealing with the problem. This contains a summary of the principles that we have elucidated and a checklist/aide memoire for their application. (Please see “Principles checklist/aide memoire”).Case study: Maria MoralesMaria Morales, head of the “Infectious Disease Control” unit of the Ministry of Health of the State X, is asked by her minister to make a suggestion if measles immunisation should be made mandatory in their region as recently 2 children died after a measles outbreak. State X has an insufficient immunisation rate (1st dose 70%, 2nd 55%). Maria finds out that obligatory measles immunisation is effectively implemented in regions in Hungary and the Czech Republic. She knows her minister is taking her advice most seriously. What should she do? [39].Principles checklist/aide memoireNon-Maleficence: ✓ Will no one be harmed by the proposed intervention? ✓ Are especially children prevented from harm?2. Beneficence: ✓ Is the intervention of any good to every single person taking part in this intervention? ✓ Overall, for both non-maleficence and beneficence, is it possible to assess whether more benefit than harm is produced by intervening (or not intervening) and, if so, on what side (benefit or harm) does the equation finally fall?3. Health Maximization: ✓ Is the proposed intervention effective and evidence-based? Does it improve population health? ✓ Does it have a sustainable, long-term effect on the public’s health? ✓ Is there a community added value to the proposed intervention?4. Efficiency: ✓ Is the proposed intervention cost-effective? ✓ Awareness of scarcity of public money; saved money can be used for other goods and services.5. Respect for Autonomy: ✓ Does the intervention refrain from employing coercion and manipulation? Does it foster free choice? ✓ Is there really ‘informed consent’ to take part in the intervention? ✓ Is self-responsibility not only demanded but also possible for every person? ✓ Are privacy and personal data respected? ✓ If the intervention is paternalistic, is this justifiable? ✓ Does the intervention promote the exercise of autonomy?6. Justice: ✓ Is no one (including third parties) stigmatised, discriminated against or excluded as a consequence of the proposed intervention? ✓ Is the institution proposing the intervention publicly justified and acting transparently? ✓ Is the proposed intervention not putting sub-populations at risks of being excluded from social benefits and/or universal access to health care? ✓ Does the intervention exacerbate social and health inequalities (inequities)? Does it fight inequalities (inequities)? ✓ Does the intervention consider and support vulnerable sub-populations (e.g. migrants)? ✓ Does the intervention promote rather than endanger fair (and real) equality of opportunity and participation in social action? ✓ Does the intervention refrain from eroding a sense of social cohesion and solidarity?7. Proportionality: ✓ Is the intervention the least infringing of possible alternatives?✓ Are costs and utility proportional? Each small group discusses the case that it has been given. They can follow the detailed steps as presented in Table 2. Participants are asked to:Table 2: Steps of applied ethical reasoning; own source, inspired by [40–42] .Steps Selected questions and issues raised by the example case study “Maria Morales”1. Identify and frame in own words: What is the underlying moral conflict? Can a parents’ right to not have an intervention done with their child be overridden by the state (for someone else’s good)? Furthermore: Can parents exercise their will on behalf of their children?2. Identify and frame in ethical words: Which ethical principles are relevant, how can they be specified and might they be in conflict to each other? Overall, the principles respect for autonomy and health maximisation seem to be affected and seem to mutually exclude each other. But one also has to ask whose autonomy is at stake. Parents’ autonomy – but what about the future autonomy of children? Furthermore, the immunising doctor might be indecisive whether to advocate for autonomy, health maximisation or non-maleficence.3. Zoom further in: Do I have all relevant information? Can I get more background information to understand all particularities? What are the potential side effects of measles immunisation? How severe are measles for children? About how many persons (to be vaccinated against their parents’ will) can be protected, which effect would such an immunisation programme have on the incidence of measles and which side-effects could actually be prevented?4. Are alternative solutions feasible with less moral issues/costs? Can there be alternative approaches to mandatory measles immunisation? Can one raise immunisation rates by informing, advertising, setting incentives for parents?5. Further Specification: Do the specifications change with more information? If there are alternative ways that are less infringing on the respect for autonomy but rather support the health maximisation and the protection of those who cannot be immunised (ensuring non-maleficence), then these alternatives have a higher moral value.6. Weighing: Are all conflicting principles and their specifications still of equal value? If other measures (incentive setting, education campaigns for immunisation) can be successfully implemented elsewhere, mandatory immunisation seems less necessary. Yet, autonomy of the parents (who are safeguarding the autonomy of their children) attains even more weight.7. What do I conclude from the specification and weighing? What would be my solution to the problem? Mandatory measles immunisation would – in this very particular situation – not be necessary in order to achieve best health and given that it would infringe autonomy of parents (and allegedly of children), it should not be applied.8. Integrity: Can I personally accept the conclusion drawn? It seems to be a suitable solution to – at least first – try other measures, rather than being in charge of forcing parents and children to have children’s bodies ‘invaded’ against their ‘guards’ will.9. Act and convince: I act according to my judgment and convince colleagues and others also based on ethical reasoning. I try to find resources within my professional budget and start action to promote immunisation with other means.Identify as specifically as possible what they believe to be the ethical challenges and potential conflicts within the case;Frame these challenges in explicitly ethical language (i.e. according to the principles and other normative moral theory so far discussed within the course and contained in their ‘toolbox’);Suggest a ‘solution’ or otherwise a way of dealing with the case through the development of an ethical argument that again uses the resources of the ‘toolbox’.At this last stage of the small group work phase, the groups formulate a justification for action that both elucidates the normative processes that have led them to their conclusion; and present an argument as to how and why they have rejected and would deal with alternative possible normative positions. (For example, in the presented case study “Maria Morales”, population benefit versus parental autonomy). Each small group in turn presents their justification and anticipation of counter-argument to the group as a whole in a plenary session. The emphasis in this session is not simply on exposition but also on continuing and developing the ‘dialogue of argument and understanding’ that the small group work has begun to generate.Summary: Developing the ethical persona of the public health practitionerIn this paper, we have presented and justified our short course framework for ethics teaching and learning in public health. Our premise was that public health practitioners are frequently faced with difficult situations in which they have to make decisions with explicitly moral dimensions and yet they receive little training in the area of ethics. The crowded nature of the public health curriculum, and the nature of students participating in it, required us to devise and develop a short course, and to use techniques, that were likely to provide both a relatively efficient introduction to the processes, content and methods involved in the field of ethics; and make use of the understanding and experiences of our likely participants.Our aims in presenting the framework have been modest. Primarily, they are to raise awareness of ethical issues within the practice of public health; and to provide a ‘toolbox’ to support thinking and reasoning (and possibly decision making) on the part of public health professionals in training. The modesty of these aims stems, as we have made clear, from a keen pragmatism about what can actually be achieved in this context.Of course, this is not to exclude the fundamentally important proposition that this kind of introduction can only ever provide a ‘snapshot’ for participants of an enormous and (we believe) essentially interesting territory. In view of the fact that the endeavour of teaching ethics is currently a work under development in most European schools of public health, the approach described and discussed here can perhaps be used as a ‘minimum standard’ curriculum for teaching and learning in this area. We argue, however, that the limitation of our highly specific approach to a deeply complex area is outweighed by its forming at least the basis for independent thought, which we hope will extend well beyond the time boundaries of the short course itself.We would hope that our short course model, or something approaching it, could be used until it is possible for programme directors to be able to designate more space for ethics modules in their programmes and until more fitting curricula, broadly encompassing ethics, are made available. Our approach in this short course framework has been to develop the realisation that independent ethical thought is possible, but that circumstances require guidance and direction. In this respect, we suggest that although the course may be considered as being partly akin to what Dawson [43] has described as ‘outside in’ ethics – the idea that principles act from the outside and guide practitioners in their ethical behaviour – it also sows the seed through case study deliberation for the emergence of ‘inside out’ (also from Dawson)– oriented ethical practitioners.‘Outside in’- oriented ethics has value, but also has limitations, especially in the regard that, without principles being there, or being readily applicable (which may frequently be the case given the complexity of public health practice), the practitioner is rendered more or less helpless. While our course is based, as we have described, on principles, we have tried to make clear that it is not in any sense about ‘outside in’ rote learning of these principles. Our case study and problem-based learning approach allows the possibility of ‘inside out’ ethics. We encourage through our methods the development of independent ethical thinking on the part of those involved in public health. The essence of an ‘inside out’ approach lies in the development of moral capacity on the part of the individual; encouraging them, along Aristotelian lines, to engage in examination and reflection on their life and experience in order to come to a sense of what it is to live ethically and to inhabit an ‘ethical persona’. Thus moral sense and ethical expertise is developed from within. We believe that given the current organisational and institutional constraints of the public health curriculum, our short course will go some way to both provide future public health practitioners with a tool-box founded on our seven principles framework of public health ethics and also foster the development through its focus on experiential and problem-based learning, and the active application of case studies, of ‘inside out’ ethics.AcknowledgementsThe authors want to acknowledge the employing institutions of the authors: Maastricht University, King’s College London and the École des hautes études en santé publique. In particular we want to thank the INPES Chair in Health Promotion at the École des hautes études en santé publique that supported the initial discussions of this paper among PSB, PD and WS. The authors would also like to thank two reviewers for their very helpful comments.BY: Peter Duncan, Email: http://[email protected], William Sherlaw, Email: [email protected], Caroline Brall, Email: [email protected], Katarzyna Czabanowska, Email: [email protected]. GaareBernheim R. Public health ethics: the voices of practitioners. J Law Med Ethics. 2003;3:104–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]2. Duncan P. Values, Ethics and Health Care. London: SAGE; 2010. [Google Scholar]3. Aceijas C, Brall C, Schröder-Bäck P, Otok R, Maeckelberghe E, Strech D, Tulchinsky T. Teaching ethics in schools of public health in the European region – results of a screening survey. Public Health Rev. 2012;34(1):146–155. [Google Scholar]4. Kass N. An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1776–1782. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1776. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]5. Eckles RE, Meslin EM, Gaffney M, Helft PR. Medical ethics education: where are we? Where should we be going? A review. Acad Med. 2005;80(12):1143–1152. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200512000-00020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]6. Cribb A. Health and the Good Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]7. Downie RS, Tannahill A, Tannahill C. Health Promotion: Models and Values. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]8. Lacey AR. A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1976. [Google Scholar]9. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]10. Childress JF, Faden RR, Gaare RD, Gostin LO, Kahn J, Bonnie RJ, Kass NE, Mastroianni AC, Moreno JD, Nieburg P. Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. J Law Med Ethics. 2002;30:170–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2002.tb00384.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]11. Singer PA, Benatar SR, Bernstein M, Daar AS, Dickens BM, MacRae SK, Upshur REG, Wright L, Shaul RZ. Ethics and SARS: lessons from Toronto. Br Med J. 2003;327:1342–1344. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7427.1342. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]12. Powers M, Faden R. Social Justice: The Moral Foundations of Public Health and Health Policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]13. Daniels N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]14. Schröder-Bäck P. Ethische Prinzipien für die Public-Health-Praxis. Grundlagen und Anwendungen[Ethical Principles for Public Health Practice. Foundations and Applications] Frankfurt a.M: Campus; 2014. [Google Scholar]15. Engelhardt HT, Jr, Wildes KW. The four principles of health care ethics: why a libertarian interpretation is unavoidable. In: Gillon R, Lloyd A, editors. Principles of Health Care Ethics. Chichester: Wiley; 1994. pp. 135–147. [Google Scholar]16. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research . The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D. C: United States Government Printing Office; 1978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]17. Jonsen AR. Do no harm: axiom of medical ethics. In: Spicker SF, Englehardt HTJr, editors. Philosophical Medical Ethics: Its Nature and Significance. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer; 1977. pp. 27–41. [Google Scholar]18. Smith CM. Origin and uses of primum non nocere - above all, do no harm! J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;45:371–377. doi: 10.1177/0091270004273680. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]19. Beauchamp TL. The ‘four principles’ approach to health care ethics. In: Ashcroft R, Dawson A, Draper H, McMillan J, editors. Principles of Health Care Ethics. Second. West Sussex, England: Wiley; 2007. pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]20. Seedhouse D. Health: The Foundations for Achievement. 2. Chichester: Wiley; 2001. [Google Scholar]21. Veatch R. Doctor does not know best: why in the new century physicians must stop trying to benefit patients. J Med Philos. 2000;25:701–721. doi: 10.1076/jmep.25.6.701.6126. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]22. Boorse C. Health as theoretical concept. Philos Sci. 1977;44:542–573. doi: 10.1086/288768. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]23. Veatch RM. A Theory of Medical Ethics. New York: Basic Books; 1982. [Google Scholar]24. Czabanowska K, Menzies LA. English for European Public Health. A Specialised Course for Students and Professionals. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]25. Pence GE. Classic Cases in Medical Ethics. Accounts of Cases that Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Background. Third. Boston: McGraw Hill; 2000. [Google Scholar]26. Veatch RM, Haddad AM, English DC. Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics: Decision-Making, Principles, and Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]27. Coughlin SS, Soskolne CL, Goodman KW. Case Studies in Public Health Ethics. Washington: American Public Health Association; 1997. [Google Scholar]28. Halper E. Ethics in film. APA Newsletter. 2003;3(1):191–195. [Google Scholar]29. Macnaughton J. Literature and ‘the good doctor’ in Ian McEwan’s ‘Saturday’ Med Humanit. 2007;33:70–74. doi: 10.1136/jmh.2007.000259. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]30. Verweij M, Dawson A. The meaning of ‘public’ in ‘public health’ In: Dawson A, Verweij M, editors. Ethics, Prevention and Public Health. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2007. pp. 13–29. [Google Scholar]31. Anomaly J. Public health and public goods. Public Health Ethics. 2011;4:251–259. doi: 10.1093/phe/phr027. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]32. Boorse C. Concepts of health. In: VanDeVeer D, Regan T, editors. Health Care Ethics: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1987. pp. 359–393. [Google Scholar]33. Nordenfelt L. The concepts of health and illness revisited. Med Health Care Philos. 2007;10:5–10. doi: 10.1007/s11019-006-9017-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]34. Goldberg D. In support of a broad model of public health: disparities, social epidemiology, and public health causation. Public Health Ethics. 2009;1:1–14. [Google Scholar]35. Rothstein MA. The limits of public health: a response. Public Health Ethics. 2009;2(1):84–88. doi: 10.1093/phe/phn041. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]36. Jennings B, Kahn J, Mastroianni A, Parker LS. Ethics and Public Health: Model Curriculum. New York: Association of Schools of Public Health; 2003. [Google Scholar]37. Loughlin M. Criticizing the data: some concerns about empirical approaches to ethics. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(5):970–975. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01750.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]38. Carr D. Making Sense of Education. Abingdon: Routledge; 2003. [Google Scholar]39. Schröder-Bäck P, Brand H, Escamilla I, Davies JK, Hall C, Hickey K, Jelastopulu E, Mechtler R, Volf J. Ethical evaluation of compulsory measles immunisation as a benchmark for good health management in the European Union. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2009;17:183–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]40. Finder-Stone P. Weaving ethical threads into the nursing curriculum fabric. In: Ashmore RB, Starr WC, editors. Teaching Ethics: An interdisciplinary Approach. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press; 1994. pp. 97–111. [Google Scholar]41. Horster D. Einleitung. [Introduction] In: Horster D, editor. Moralentwicklung von Kindern und Jugendlichen. [In Moral Development in Children and Adolescents] Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Wissenschaften; 2007. pp. 7–16. [Google Scholar]42. Marckmann G, Strech D. Konzeptionelle Grundlagen einer Public Health Ethik. [Conceptional basics of a public health ethic] In: Strech D, Marckmann G, editors. Public Health Ethik. [In Public Health Ethics] Münster: Lit; 2010. pp. 43–65. [Google Scholar]43. Dawson A. Professional codes of practice and ethical conduct. J Appl Philos. 1994;11(2):145–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.1994.tb00104.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]Teaching seven principles for public health ethics: towards a curriculum for a short course on ethics in public health programmes

Jef Delvaux, a Ph.D. student in philosophy at York University, has undertaken the project of putting together a bibliography of writings by philosophers about the COVID-19 pandemic and related issues.The bibliography is divided into three sections: academic philosophy, written public philosophy, and non-written media. Mr. Delvaux notes that the bibliography is a work in progress, so perhaps further categorizations will be added at some point.Covid-19 & Philosophy: Towards a BibliographyThis bibliography is incomplete. Please consider sending me suggestions through e-mail: [email protected]. You can also reach me via Twitter. Hopefully I will be adding some kind of statement of intent in the near future.Academic PhilosophyMayEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics Vol. 30 (4) May 2020Official Journal of the Asian Bioethics Association.Issue entirely dedicated to Covid-19.Table of ContentsWearing Masks in COVID-19 Pandemic, the Precautionary Principle, and the Relationships between Individual Responsibility and Group Solidarity by Darryl MacerJapan’s management of COVID-19 by Nader GhotbiEthical implications of ‘Rationing’ vs ‘Rationalization’ by Maria Patrão NevesRecognitive and redistributive claims in COVID-19 outbreak by Rogelio P. BayodRelationships between Sri Lankan culture, diets and COVID-19 disease control by Omalpe SomanandaA search for a COVID-19 cure in Siddha medicine by Dhastagir Sultan SheriffHealing mind & body by Mantras, Ayurveda & Yoga by Lakshmi VyasHow not to face coronavirus: the case of Spain by Manuel Lozano RodríguezWho is the most vulnerable during a pandemic? The social model of disability and the COVID-19 crisis by Christopher Ryan MabolocCybercrime pandemic by Marites V. Fontanilla3ndstage COVID-19 spread can be contained with HITT (hydrate, isolate, train, & test) and virtual contact by Osama RajhkanCOVID-19 and Healthcare professionals: The principle of the common good by Randy A. TudyNegotiating the “Good Death”: Saying Goodbye in the Time of COVID-19 by Zehra EdisanThe Economics of COVID-19 in the Philippines by Leandro S. EstadillaSocial Cohesion, Trust, and Government Action Against Pandemics by Marlon Patrick P. LofredoCOVID-19 Debates in Thailand by Ananya TritipthumrongchokCommentary on Tritipthumrongchok by Leonard H. Le Blanc, IIIWe need to work together to find a cure and vaccine for COVID-19 by Mei LuOzamiz Politics in the Time of COVID-19 Pandemic by Gerry ArambalaRole of information and communication technology duringthe COVID-19 Pandemic by Dennis L. AlfaroApril04/29/20 - Michael A Peters, Philosophy and Pandemic in the Postdigital Era: Foucault, Agamben, Zizek, in: Postdigital Science and EducationPublished Online first04/01 - Dominic Wilkinson, ICU triage in an impending crisis: uncertainty, pre-emption and preparation, in: Journal of Medical Ethics.Published Online FirstEditorialTable of ContentsICU triageImpending crisisCentral quote: ‘How should intensive care clinicians make decisions in the face of an impending crisis?’The author makes three suggestionsE-Flux, Journal #108 - April 2020Digital magazineEditorialTable of ContentsOne Hundred Years of Crisis by Yuk HuiEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics Vol. 30 (3) April 2020Official Journal of the Asian Bioethics AssociationIssue entirely dedicated to Covid-19.Table of ContentsEditorial: Bioethics and COVID19 by Darryl MacerBioethics gone viral: How to protect ourselves from any virus by Mihaela SerbuleaEthics of care and Philippine politics during the COVID-19 outbreak by Rogelio P. BayodCommentary on Bayod by Leandro S. EstadillaGlobalization and consumer culture: social costs and political implications of the COVID-19 pandemic by Christopher Ryan MabolocCommentary on Maboloc by Aldrin F. QuinteroA brief historical review of the great pandemic of 1918: the Spanish Flu by Leonard H. Le BlancEthical and social challenges of COVID-19 in Iran by Mahta BaratipourCommentary on Baratipour by Marites V. FontanillaCommentary on Baratipour by Leonard H. Le BlancReturn to ourselves: psychological reflections over compulsory physical distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak by Zehra EdisanCommentary on Edisan by Dennis AlfaroHealth care in India in the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic scenario by Dhastagir Sultan SheriffSpiritual universal ethical values for a global health system using change theory: results of a disintegrated approach in the 2020 pandemic by Suma ParahakaranBioethics at the time of coronavirus crisis; an ethical reflectio on good public policies and a better future by Mireille D’AstousPandemics from the lens of former peace keeper: COVID-19 response by Purusottam KCEvaluation of public health and clinical care ethical practices during the COVID-19 outbreak days from media reports in Turkey by Sukran SevimliImpacts of COVID19 Pandemic on Care of the Patients with Cancer by Esra BilirEquality, Positive Health and Global Inequality in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic by Gerry F. ArambalaTribal Communities and Nations in a time of COVID-19 by Carmela M. RoybalCOVID19: Social Stigma and Public Health Dilemma by Shahanaz ChowdhuryMaintenance of Physical Distance to Prevent COVID-19: A Glimpse at Bangladesh by Wardatul Akmam and Md. Fakrul IslamMarch03/23/20 - Ezekiel J. Emanuel e.a., Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19, in: The New England Journal of Medicine.Table of ContentsHealth Impacts of Moderate-to-Severe PandemicsHealth System CapacityEthical Values for Rationing Health Resources in a PandemicWho Gets Health Resources in a Covid-19 Pandemic?Implementing Rationing PoliciesConclusionsCentral quote: ‘The choice to set limits on access to treatment is not a discretionary decision, but a necessary response to the overwhelming effects of a pandemic.’Central quote: ‘Previous proposals for allocation of resources in pandemics and other settings of absolute scarcity, including our own prior research and analysis, converge on four fundamental values: maximizing the benefits produced by scarce resources, treating people equally, promoting and rewarding instrumental value, and giving priority to the worst off.’Central quote: ‘These ethical values — maximizing benefits, treating equally, promoting and rewarding instrumental value, and giving priority to the worst off — yield six specific recommendations for allocating medical resources in the Covid-19 pandemic: maximize benefits; prioritize health workers; do not allocate on a first-come, first-served basis; be responsive to evidence; recognize research participation; and apply the same principles to all Covid-19 and non–Covid-19 patients.’03/23 Robert D. Truog, Christine Mitchell, and George Q. Daley, The Toughest Triage — Allocating Ventilators in a Pandemic, in: The New England Journal of Medicine.Central quote: ‘In addition to removing the responsibility for triage decisions from the bedside clinicians, committee members should also take on the task of communicating the decision to the family.’Central quote: ‘[P]hysicians, nurses, or respiratory therapists who are caring for the patient should not be required to carry out the process of withdrawing mechanical ventilation; they should be supported by a team that is willing to serve in this role and that has skills and expertise in palliative care and emotional support of patients and families.’03/20 - Nir Eyal, Marc Lipsitch, Ethical comparators in Coronavirus Vaccine Trials, in: Dash Repository.Table of ContentsNo better option for participants outside the trialNo better option for anyone outside the trialNo better option for participants in any differently designed trialHow to combine expediency with compassion in vaccine efficacy trialsPractical ImplicationsJanuaryDarryl Macer, Editorial: COVID19 and Health, in: Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics Vol. 30 (1) January 2020, p. 1.Brief editorial that puts some of the papers in this issue in relation to the expected pandemic.Month not specifiedH. Orri Stefánsson, Three Mistakes in the Moral Reasoning About the Covid-19 Pandemic, in: the Working Paper Series of the Institute for Futures Studies.Table of ContentsBackground: A virus Grinds the World Economy to a HaltFirst Mistake: The Illusion that we can Avoid Trade-offsSecond Mistake: “Leave it to the “Experts”Third Mistake: Ignoring Symmetric Catastrophic RiskConclusion: How to be Better Prepared Next TimePublic PhilosophyEssays, Blog Posts, Op-Eds, Interviews etc. in Written FormMay05/02/20- Steve Fuller, Creating the Covid-19 story, in: IAI.TV05/01/20- Jana Mohr Lone, Why are kids asking such big questions during the pandemic, in: The ConversationApril04/30/20- Anastasia Berg, Now Is as Good a Time as Any to Start a Family, in: NY Times04/29/20- Todd May, What is making you stay at home right now?, in: NY Times04/27/20- Silvia Camporesi, It didn’t have to be this way, in: AeonA bioethicist at the heart of the Italian coronavirus crisis asks: why won’t we talk about the trade-offs of the lockdown?Central quote: ‘Our privilege has concealed the reality of finite healthcare resources….There’s no such thing as a value-free model – the longterm effects of lockdowns must be accounted for.’04/25/20- Donald Robertson, Stoicism in a time of pandemic: how Marcus Aurelius can help, in: The GuardianCentral quote: ‘The Meditations, by a Roman emperor who died in a plague named after him, has much to say about how to face fear, pain, anxiety and loss.’04/23/20- Joe Humphreys, Are we all Kantians now? The Covid-19 effect on moral philosophy [Interview with Katy Dineen], in: Irish TimesCentral quote: ‘This virus is making it harder for us to shield our eyes from the conditions some workers are being asked to tolerate.’04/22/20- Irina Dumitrescu and Caleb Smith, The Demon of Distraction, in: Critical Inquiry Blog04/21/20 - David Killoren, What should we do if we can’t beat coronavirus?, in: ABC Religion & Ethics04/21/20- Vafa Ghazavi, Ethics at a Distance, in: Boston ReviewCentral quote: ‘We may feel individually powerless to contribute to social transformation. But each of us bears responsibility for helping to create a more just world.’04/20/20 - Aveek Bhattacharya and Fay Niker, Philosophers’ Rundown on the Coronavirus Crisis, in: Justice Everywhere.Matthew Adams answers the question: What does coronavirus mean for the feasibility of social justice?Diana Popescu answers the question: What does coronavirus mean for the adoption of UBI?Anca Gheaus answers the question: How does coronavirus help us to imagine a just society?Lisa Herzog answers the question: What does coronavirus mean for economic precarity?Nicolás Brando answers the question: What does coronavirus mean for education?Merten Reglitz answers the question: What does coronavirus show us about the need for internet access?Christian Baatz and Julia Hermann answer the question: What does coronavirus show us about how to fight climate change?Anhe Le answers the question: What does coronavirus show us about how to make decisions under uncertainty?Viktor Ivanković answers the question: What does coronavirus mean for how we should view (un)acceptable risk?04/20/20 - Juan Cruz, La pandemia es una tentación autoritaria que invita a la represión [Interview with Carolin Emcke], in El País.Translated title: “The pandemic is an authoritarian temptation that invites repression”, english version in Web24 News.Central quote: 'Está quedando a la vista también que el Estado no puede retraerse infinitamente de su responsabilidad, que hacen falta infraestructuras públicas, bienes públicos, una orientación hacia el bien común.'Translated quote: 'It is also becoming clear that the State cannot infinitely withdraw from its responsibility, that there is a need of public infrastructure, public goods, an orientation towards the common good.'04/20/20 - Matt Bennett, Following the science: trust, experts, and COVID-19, in: Open for Debate.Central quote: ‘The relevant facts underdetermine policy, which must also be led by what we value most, and what we want to achieve with our public health response.’04/20/20 - Boris Groys, Борис Гройс: ‘Коронавирус стал селебрити, которому завидуют’, in: Эксперт Online.Translated Title: Boris Groys: ‘The coronavirus has become an envied celebrity.’Alex Zaitsev provided a summary: ‘The coronavirus has become viral, it's the celebrity number one. We are no longer discussing Trump, we are discussing the virus. Those who are downplaying the virus ("Look, it's not even dangerous!") are downplaying it like Michael Jackson's celebrity status.’04/17/20 - Andrew Marantz, Studying Fascist Propaganda by Day, Watching Trump’s Coronavirus Updates by Night [interview with Jason Stanley], in: The New Yorker.Portrait of how the Trump administration’s response to Covid-19 impacts his course Propaganda, Ideology, & Democracy.04/17/20- N. Katherine Hayles, Novel Corona: Posthuman Virus, in: Critical Inquiry Blog04/17/20 - Luuk van Middelaar, Na de noodtoestand, de tussentijd, in De Standaard.Translated title: After the state of emergency, the in-between times.Central quote: ‘It’s important that governments keep on sharing both their guesses and uncertainties, so that we don’t feel like being addressed as herd animals by all-knowing bosses. ‘Richard Yetter Chappell, Against Conventional Moral 'Decency’, in: Philosophy, et cetera.The author, via e-mail: ‘[I am] criticizing the common prioritization of medical over other human interests, esp. as expressed in Regina Rini's TLS article.’04/16/20 - Françoise Baylis, Coronavirus: When Canadian compassion requires social distancing, in: The Conversation.Central quote: ‘Here is a radical idea — what if almost everyone was given a two-week holiday with pay, with the costs evenly split between the employer and the government?’04/16/20 - Cailin O’connor and James Owen Weatherall, Why False Claims About COVID-19 Refuse to Die, in: Nautilus.Central quote: ‘Science journals and science journalists rightly recognize that there is intense interest in COVID-19 and that the science is evolving rapidly. But that does not obviate the risks of spreading information that is not properly vetted or failing to emphasize when arguments depend on data that is very much in flux.’04/16/20 - Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, Coronavirus lays bare the staggering class inequalities that divide America, in: The Appeal.Central quote: ‘ Asking whether we should frame our domination in terms of class as opposed to gender or race is rather like a person with a boot on their neck debating whether their predicament is truly about the boot, the foot inside of it, or the sock in between.’04/15/20 - L. Syd M Johnson, Prioritizing justice in ventilator allocation, in: Blog | Journal of Medical Ethics.Central quote: ‘The fundamental flaw with allocation policies is the underlying rationale for using them: saving as many lives as possible given limited resources. While saving as many lives as possible is a reasonable and laudable goal in a pandemic, one in keeping with shared public values, it need not be the only or prevailing goal. There are other, competing values and goals that can and should inform ventilator allocation policies.’04/15/20- Peter Szendy, Viral Times, in: Critical Inquiry Blog04/15/20 - Michael Hesse, Philosoph Otfried Höffe über die Corona-Krise: ‘Regierungen sind nicht für Glück zuständig’ [Interview], in: Frankfurter Rundschau.Translated title: Philosopher Ottfried Höffe on the coronacrisis: Governments are not responsible for happiness.’Central quote, in response to the question how one should deal with moral dilemmas: ‘In real life situations one will be able, if one thinks in sufficiently thorough and creative ways, to find emergency exists.’04/15/20 - Thaddeus Metz, Why Sisyphus comes to mind in my daily struggles against coronavirus, in: The ConversationCentral quote: ‘Unlike a large stone, coronavirus is very small, and yet our struggle against it is precisely a Sisyphean task: we have no choice but to push coronavirus away, doing so over and over again, having little hope of that making a real difference, and being far from enlivened by the process.’04/15/20 - Daniel Story, Lucky till now, in: Santa Barbara Independent.04/13/20 - Erik Angner, Epistemic Humility—Knowing Your Limits in a Pandemic, in: Behavorial scientist.Central quote: ‘[I]t is fine and good to have opinions, and to express them in public—even with great conviction. The point is that true experts, unlike charlatans, express themselves in a way that mirrors their limitations.’04/13/20 - David Benatar, Our Cruel Treatment of Animals Led to the Coronavirus, in: The New York Times.04/13/20 - David Killoren, Pandemic Ethics-Earthquakes, Infections, and Consent, in: Practical Ethics.Central quote: ‘But I think there is something deeper going on, too. I think that a virus raises rather different ethical issues than an earthquake, and I think the ethical differences between these threats might explain some of the differences in our responses to them.’04/13/20 - Jean-Luc Nancy and Shaj Mohan, Our Mysterious Being, in: The Philosophical SalonVictoria Derrien translated Jean-Luc Nancy’s piece04/13/20 - Andrzej W. Nowak, Philosophical Necromancy or Accelerationist Hope? A response to Agamben, in: Lefteast.Central quote: ‘The project of accelerationist biopolitics may in practice mean a conscious slowing down, suppressing part of the needs, restriction of excess consumption to make our societies more resilient to future pandemics or climate change.’04/13/20 - Michael J. Sandel, Are We All in This Together?, in: The New York Times.Central quote: ‘[B]eyond the issue of health care, we need to think more broadly about the way we contend with inequality. We need to better reward the social and economic contributions of work done by the majority of Americans, who don’t have college degrees. And we need to reckon with the morally corrosive downsides of meritocracy.’04/12/20 - Richard Yetter Chappell, When is CVI worthwhile?, in: Philosophy, et cetera.From personal correspondence with the author: assessing what empirical data we'd need to justify implementing variolation.Central quote: ‘There are a lot of unknowns at present. While far from certain, there's at least a non-trivial chance that widespread CVI could turn out to be the best strategy (when all costs are properly taken into account).’04/11/20 - Agnes Callard, What Do the Humanities Do In a Crisis? in: The New Yorker.04/11/20 - Simon Critchley, To Philosophize Is to Learn How to Die, in: The New York Times.Central quote: ‘The consolation of philosophy in this instance consists in pulling away from the death-denying habits of normal life and facing the anxiety of the situation with a cleareyed courage and sober realism.’04/11/20 - Matthias Warkus, Triage soll Menschen retten, nicht töten, in: Spektrum.Translated title: Triage is intended to save, not kill, humans.04/11/20 - The Associated Press, Libertarians Debate: How to Respond to Coronavirus Pandemic?, in: The New York Times.NYT-link no longer active, but can be retrieved via The Washington Times.Includes comments by Michael Huemer and Dan Moller.04/10/20 - Emily Bazelon, Restarting America Means People Will Die. So /When Do We Do It? in: The New York Times MagazineEmily Bazel moderates a panel discussion between William J. Barber II, Anne Case, Zeke Emanuel, Vanita Gupta and Peter Singer.04/10/20- Lorraine Daston, Ground-Zero Empiricism, in: Critical Inquiry Blog04/10/20 - Jonathan Fuller, Why coronavirus death rates can't be summed up in one simple number, in: The Conversation.Central quote: ‘Ultimately, deciding which effects of our interventions to measure and how to measure them is not a purely scientific problem; it is also an ethical problem.’04/10/20 - Alison Hills, 'Can I sunbathe in the park?' is now a deep moral question, in: The Guardian.Central quote: ‘Though we should all keep to the guidelines, it doesn’t follow that we should heap blame on those who don’t, not knowing what staying at home is like for them, not knowing their reasons for being out. Of course they should comply, but be kind; most people are doing their best.’04/10/20 . Stephan Laudien, Freies Entscheiden ist mehr als bloßes Auswählen [Interview with Hegel-scholar Klaus Vieweg], in: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaTranslated title: To decide freely is more than merely choose.Central quote: ‘The participants of Coronaparties do not assert their right to act freely, they act randomly and fundamentally go against freedom, against human rights.04/10/20 - Markus Schwering, Jürgen Habermas über Corona: ‘So viel Wissen über unser Nichtwissen gab es noch nie’ [Interview], in: Frankfurter Rundschau.Translated title: Jürgen Habermas on Corona: ‘There never was this much knowing about not-knowing.04/09/20 - Ignaas Devisch, Ethiek gaat om meer dan procedures, in: De Standaard.Translated Title: Ethics is about more than procedures.Central quote (tr.): ‘Policy is what happens to make ethics possible, and we shouldn’t reverse that proposition.’04/08/20 - Alex Broadbent, Lockdown is wrong for Africa, in: The Mail & Guardian.Translated quote: ‘Is there an alternative to lockdown? Yes: lock down areas where this makes sense, and which have the older portion of the population, but don’t lock down where it’s impossible to do so.’04/08/20 - Joshua Parker and Ben Davies, The Perfect Protocol? Ethics Guidelines in a Pandemic, in: Practical Ethics.Central quote: [A] protocol can increase [doctors’] confidence in the decisions as well as reducing their decision-making burden.Yet protocols are not a panacea. The fact that these are such hugely consequential decisions is precisely why we must be careful handing over ethical decision-making to guidelines.’04/08/20 - Ianthe Sahadat, Heiligt het doel de middelen? Filosoof Marli Huijer: ‘Ik weet eigenlijk niet wat het doel is’ [Interview], in: de VolkskrantTranslated title: Does the end justify the means? Philosopher Marli Huijer: I actually don’t know what the goal is’.04/08/20 - Şerife Tekin, Health Disparities in Covid 19 Triage Protocols, in: Impact Ethics.Central quote: ‘ It is not easy to come up with [an alternative to a utilitarian appraoch] but we can at least set the tone of thinking about these complex realities by sharing a commitment to social justice, diversity, and inclusion in healthcare. Thus, it is an opportune time to turn to the fundamental commitments of feminist bioethics.’04/08/20 - Simone Wermelskirchen and Hannah Steinharter, Philosophieprofessor zu Corona-Maßnahmen: ‘Wir sind nicht im Krieg’ [Interview with Markus Gabriel], in: Handelsblatt.Central quote (tr.): ‘We are not at war, and even then not everything is permitted.’04/07/20 - Giorgio Agamben, Wir sollten uns weniger sorgen und mehr denken, in: Neue Zürcher ZeitungTranslated title: We should worry less and think more.04/07/20 - Martin Lenz, Will the future be like the past? Making sense of experiences in and of the corona crisis, in: Handling Ideas.Central quote: ‘Continuists think that the future resembles the past, even after this crisis. Accordingly, they will try and prepare for the time after the crisis in much the same way they have pursued their goals before. By contrast, discontinuists assume that the future is not only uncertain but likely different from the status quo of the past.’04/07/20 - Daniel Sokol, Where are the ICU triage protocols?, in: BMJ Blog.Central quote: ‘The reluctance to be open about these life-and-death protocols is understandable but misplaced.’04/07/20 - Dominic Wilkinson, Boris Johnson will be receiving the same special treatment other patients do in NHS intensive care, in: The Conversation.Central quote: ‘Much as [healthcare workers] will try to treat [Boris Johnson] like any other patient, they will be acutely conscious of the weight of a nation’s anxious gaze.’Crossposted in: Practical Ethics.04/07/20- Nayef Al-Rodhan, Social Distancing: A Neurophilosophical Perspective, in: Areo Magazine04/06/20 - Jeffrey Kahn, What are the ethical considerations of using quarantines?, in: Global Health Now.Part of the series ‘COVID-19 Expert Reality Check’.Central quote: ‘Whatever restrictions are implemented should be the least restrictive to accomplish the stated public health goals.’04/06/20- Norman MacLeod, CoViD-19 Metaphors, in: Critical Inquiry Blog04/06/20 - Peter Singer and Michael Plant, When Will the Pandemic Cure Be Worse Than the Disease? in: Project Syndicate.Central quote: ‘What we really need to do is compare the impact different policies have on our overall wellbeing.’04/05/20 - Marc Cheong, Freedom in the time of COVID-19, in: New Philosopher.04/05/20- Carol J Adams, Anticipatory Care, in: Critical Inquiry Blog04/05/20- Achille Mbembe, Le droit universel à la respiration, in: AOCTranslated Title: The Universal Right to BreatheTranslated By: Carolyn ShreadTranslation: Critical Inquiry Blog04/05/2020 - Mónica B. Cragnolini, Ontología de guerra frente a la zoonosis, in La Fiebre, pensamiento contemporáneo en tiempos de pandemias [Fever, contemporary thought in times of pandemics], p.39.Translated title: Ontology of war against zoonosisCentral quote: ‘Por eso retomo el sintagma «ontología de guerra», para caracterizar la forma en que nos relacionamos con lo que se considera “naturaleza”, guerra que se ensaña contra los animales, y contra modos de existencia humana que se consideran animalizados. Esta ontología de guerra muestra un nuevo aspecto en la lucha contra las zoonosis.’Translated quote: ‘That is why I return to the phrase "war ontology", to characterize the way in which we relate to what is considered "nature", a war that is vicious against animals, and against modes of human existence that are considered animalized. This war ontology shows a new aspect in the fight against zoonoses.’04/04/20 - Alberto Giubilini, Why You Should Not (Be Allowed To) Have That Picnic in the Park, Even if it Does Not Make a Difference, in: Practical Ethics.Central quote: ‘State coercion is necessary to solve the problem of assurance, thus preserving fairness and making it more likely that the kind of cooperation necessary to achieve the collective good is realised.’The author responds to several follow-up questions and objections in the comments section.04/04/20 - Jasper Zuure, Jeroen De Ridder and Rens Vliegenthart, Hoe de Coronacrisis de belofte van het internet nieuw leven inblaast, in: Stuk Rood Vlees.Translated title: How the Coronacrisis breathes new life into the promise of the internet.Central quote (tr.): ‘Briefly summarised, next to a great deal of misery the Coronacrisis also offers a crash course in truthfinding.’04/03/20 - Andrés Gómez, Filosofía y coronavirus: intelectuales chilenos confrontan las tesis de Zizek y Byung-Chul Han [Interview with Diana Aurenque, Pablo Oyarzún and Carlos Peña], in: La Tercera.Translated title: Philosophy and coronavirus: Chilean intellectuals confront Zizek and Byung-Chul Han’ theses.Central quote: ‘El después de la pandemia dependerá en gran parte de cómo asumimos esta fase, donde generaremos una pseudo-normalidad.’Translated quote: ‘The aftermath of the pandemic will largely depend on how we assume this phase, where we will generate a pseudo-normality.’04/03/20 - Nuala P. Kenny, Living in hope pandemic and possibilities for public health, in: Impact Ethics.04/02/20 - Maarten Boudry, A strange paradox: the better we manage to contain the coronavirus pandemic, the less we will learn from it, in: The Conversation.Central quote: ‘A failure to appreciate the nature of self-refuting prophecies is worrying because we know that this will not be the last pandemic to hit humanity.’04/02/20 - Piotr T. Makowski, Theory of planning for the time of pandemic, in Medium.04/02/20 - John Z. Sandler and Şerife Tekin, Tele-Psychiatry Ethics and the COVID-19 Pandemic, in: Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry Blog.Central quote: ‘In this case, in consultation with her colleague, Dr. S. seems to have acted virtuously, in so far as she was (i) compassionate, (ii) decided to seek collaborative decision-making, (iii) took the individual context of Mr. B seriously – as a person with increased risk of negative outcome if gets sick with COVID-19, with a caregiver who is also part of the similar risk group.’04/02/20 - Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, Corona-Krise: Die Würde des Menschen ist unverrechenbar, in: Frankfurter Rundschau.Translated title: Human dignity is unquantifiableCentral quote: ‘An ethics of balancing and maximising utility is then no longer sufficient when one is confronted with the welfare of the sick, the weak and the helpless. Then we have to recourse to an ethics of unquantifiable human dignity.’04/02/20 - H. Orri Stefánsson, En mer sofistikerad debatt kan rädda liv, in: Göteborgs-Posten.Translated title: A more sophisticated public discourse could save livesFrom personal correspondence with the author: ‘[The] central claim is that individuals who have been prominent in the Swedish public discourse about the pandemic have failed to take a holistic (as in, all-things-considered) approach when considering potential responses to the pandemic.’04/02/20 - Brandon Warmke and Justin Tosi, Pandemic Discourse, in: Psychology Today.Central quote: ‘The point of talking about moral issues is to make the world a better place. As you carry on these important conversations with friends and family over the coming days and weeks, here are some things to keep in mind as we all try to have more productive moral conversations.’04/02/20 - Richard Yetter Chappell, Pandemic Moral Failures: How Conventional Morality Kills, in: Philosophy, et cetera.The author, via e-mail: ‘[The blogpost] argues that variolation, or low-dose Controlled Voluntary Infection, should be investigated as a morally legitimate policy option.’Central quote: ‘I'm more interested in less widely-appreciated mistakes.The most important of these may be the failure to adequately explore our option-space, stemming from the conventional moral thinking of many well-meaning people (including public health experts who are leading the response to the pandemic).’04/02/20 - Ayelett Shani, To Find Peace in the Time of Coronavirus, Be Very, Very Pessimistic, Says Philosopher Alain De Botton [Interview], in: Haaretz.Central quote: ‘ We have to laugh with the shit storm swirling around us. When you know what the bottom is, when you understand how bad it could get – you’re ready for it.’04/02/20- Daniele Lorenzini, Biopolitics in the time of Coronavirus, in: Critical Inquiry Blog04/01/20 - Liam Kofi Bright and Richard Bradley, The Masque of Rona, in: The Sooty Empiric.Central quote: ‚[W]hat we hope to do in this blog post is give a basic introduction to the problems of decision making under extreme uncertainty. We’re using policy making for COVID19 as a running example of this.‘04/01/20 - Lisa Herzog, What does the corona crisis teach us about the value of work? in: New Statesman.Central quote: ‘The corona crisis is an opportunity to rethink the way we assess work and to rebuild our post-crisis economic life in a different way.’04/01/20 - Regina Rini, When to think like a utilitarian, in: The Times Literary Supplement.Central quote: ‘Perhaps unprecedented choices will be demanded later. But we show deep disrespect for human life if we rush to find the earliest possible point at which it makes economic sense to throw the vulnerable under the virus.’04/01/20- Andrea Brady, Hanging in the Air, in: Critical Inquiry Blog04/XX/20 - Emmanuel Alloa, La contingence du virus, in EspritTranslated title: Coronavirus: A Contingency that Eliminates ContingencyCentral quote: ‘En enjoignant les individus à se concentrer sur l’essentiel, c’est souvent à un retour à ce que ceux-ci ont de plus familier qu’ils étaient appelés, s’immunisant contre cette part de contingence qui est le ferment de tout rapport intersubjectif.’Translated quote: ‘By enjoining individuals to focus on the essentials, they are often called to return to what they are most familiar with, immunizing themselves against this part of contingency which is the ferment of any intersubjective relationship.’Translation: Critical Inquiry BlogMarch03/31/20 - Stephanie Collins, Are you complicit in deaths if you don’t stay home? How to do good during the virus lockdown: in: The Conversation.Central quote: ‘There are two broad ways the coronavirus crisis might play out. Both make it wrong for you not to bother.’03/30/20 - Judith Butler, Capitalism Has its Limits, in: Verso Blog.Central quote: ‘The virus alone does not discriminate, but we humans surely do, formed and animated as we are by the interlocking powers of nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and capitalism.’Central quote: ‘Human rights tend to imagine the individual human as the point of departure. But why not understand health care as a social obligation, one that follows from living in society with one another?’03/30/20 - Jovito V. Cariño, The place of philosophy and thought during the coronavirus crisis, in: RapplerCentral quote: ‘It turned out that COVID-19 is revelatory not just of the fragility of human life but also of the utter frailty of the national government’s competence.’03/30/20- Thomas Nail, Pandemic prediction from Lucretius, in: iai.tv03/30/20 - Joseph Stramondo, COVID-19 Triage and Disability: What NOT To Do, in: bioethics.net.Central quote: ‘In sum, one core argument against some of the emerging COVID-19 triage protocols is that they are discriminatory against disabled people when they use criteria that deprioritize them because of a belief that their lives are of less value because they are of less quality.’03/30/20- Michael Taussig, Would a Shaman Help?, in: Critical Inquiry Blog03/29/20 - Norbert Wallet,“Die schützen, die besonders gefährdet sind” [Interview with Georg Marckmann], in: Stuttgarter Zeitung.Translated title: Protect those who are particularly at risk.Central quote (tr.): ‘We resort behind a veil of ignorance and consider [...] what a just way of dealing with such scarcity can look like. Then most people would say: We want that the most possible number of human lives are saved, because that increases the probability of survival for each individual.’Central quote (tr.): ‘[A]ll patients that need intensive care have to be treated equally. There is no priority for Covid-19 patients.’03/29/20- Joshua Clover, The Rise and Fall of Biopolitics: A Response to Bruno Latour, in: Critical Inquiry Blog03/28/20 - Paul B. Preciado, Aprendiendo del virus: in: El País.Translated Title: Learning from the virus.Central quote: ‘Pero todo esto puede ser una mala noticia o una gran oportunidad. Es precisamente porque nuestros cuerpos son los nuevos enclaves del biopoder y nuestros apartamentos las nuevas células de biovigilancia que se vuelve más urgente que nunca inventar nuevas estrategias de emancipación cognitiva y de resistencia y poner en marcha nuevos procesos antagonistas.’Translated quote: ‘But all this can be bad news or a great opportunity. It is precisely because our bodies are the new enclaves of biopower and our apartments the new cells of biovigilance that it becomes more urgent than ever to invent new strategies for cognitive emancipation and resistance and to launch new antagonistic processes.’03/28/20 - Matthias Warkus, Es ist Zeit, sich zurückzuhalten, in: Spektrum.Translated title: It’s time to restrain ourselves.Note: Piece arguing for the value and importance of moderation during this pandemic.03/27/20 - Martin Lenz, Nothing to lose? Other voices in the corona crisis, in: Handling Ideas.Central quote: ‘In any case, I find it vital to learn as much as possible about our various takes and hopes generated by the crisis, and look forward to many more exchanges.’03/26/20 - Matthew Barnard, Coronavirus: what philosopher Immanuel Kant can teach us about panic buying and isolation dodging, in: The Conversation.Central quote: ‘Where Kant tried to invoke the power of God to encourage us to act morally, something contradicting his secular philosophy, modern leaders are now being forced to invoke the power of the state – and not for the last time before this crisis is over.’03/26/20- Bruno Latour, Is this a dress rehearsal?, in: Critical Inquiry Blog03/26/20 - Joe Humphreys, Coronavirus: How can philosophy help us in this time of crisis? in: The Irish TimesFour philosophers (Charlotte Blease, Vittorio Bufacchi, Skye Cleary, Paul O’Grady) answer the title question.03/25/20 - Vittorio Bufacchi, Why we trust experts in times of crisis, in: RTÉ.Central quote: The fact that there were no travel restrictions, and that large group gatherings were until recently not prohibited, is no excuse for going to the Cheltenham races or meeting friends in the pub. That is morally reckless behaviour, which cannot be excused merely because experts or government officials did not prohibit it.’03/25/20- Alexander García Düttmann, Ein Brief von Alexander García Düttmann, in HundertvierzehnTranslated title: A Letter to Oliver VogelTranslated by: James FontiniTranslation: Critical Inquiry Blog03/25/20 - Thorsten Glotzmann, A Chat with Philosopher Svenja Flasspöhler, in: Deutsche Welle.03/25/20- Kyle Stevens, When movies get sick, in: Critical Inquiry Blog03/25/20 - Martin Lenz, Where are we now? In search of a conversation, beyond graphs and statistics, in: Handling Ideas.03/25/20 - Julian Savulescu, Is it right to cut corners in the search for a coronavirus cure?, in: The Guardian.Central quote: ‘We need to run the race by the rules in order to sufficiently protect human participants. But there is a balance to be struck: let’s not run it with one hand tied behind our back.’03/24/20 - Françoise Baylis, Coronavirus the watchword is solidarity not autonomy, in Impact Ethics.Central quote: ‘In addition to solidarity we must attend to issues of trust, neighbourliness, and reciprocity. We must trust the advice from our governments, health officials, health care providers and scientists. We must recognize our mutual vulnerability and interdependence. We must attend to the needs of the socially and economically vulnerable. We must accept responsibility for ourselves and our actions.’03/23/20 - Alain Badiou, On the Epidemic Situation, in Verso Blog.Central quote: ‘The lesson to be drawn from this is clear: the ongoing epidemic will not have, qua epidemic, any noteworthy political consequences in a country like France.’03/23/20 - Anastasia Berg, Giorgio Agamben’s Coronavirus Cluelessness, in: The Chronicle of Higher Education.Blurb from the author’s website: ‘On theory's collapse into paranoia and what it is we are really sacrificing our pleasures and freedoms for.’03/23 - Alex Broadbent, Benjamin T H Smart, Why a one-size-fits-all approach to COVID-19 could have lethal consequences, in: The Conversation.Central quote: ‘Leaders need to be given the space to say shocking things, to be upfront about what might go wrong, to change their minds in the face of new evidence, and to pick the lesser of two evils.’03/23/20 - Michael Croce, The Right to Know and the Duty to Inform: A Lesson from the Italian Experience with Covid-19, in: Open for Debate.Central quote: ‘In sum, the right to know and the duty to inform are pillars of our democratic societies, but they have a limit beyond which a constant demand and offer of information can become detrimental to our epistemic wellbeing.’03/23/20 - Andrea Sangiacomo, Covid-19 and online teaching: mind the slope, in: Groningen Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Thought Blog03/23/20 - Eric Schliesser and Eric Winsberg, Climate and coronavirus: the science is not the same, in: New Statesman.Central quote: ‘This emerging consensus without a rigorous scientific scrutiny is problematic from both a scientific and political point of view. [...] [T]he absence of scientific disagreement over Covid-19 would be highly surprising, implying informal coordination, not the ordinary give and take in the marketplace of scientific ideas.’03/23/20 - Justin E. H. Smith, It’s all just beginning, in: The Point.Central quote: ‘Not to downplay the current tragedy—[...] it is already affecting me personally in deep and real ways—but I take it that this interruption is a good thing.’Central quote: ‘I am not saying the current pandemic is retribution for our sin, but I will say that the Lele understood something about the pangolin that we have not, and that we are paying dearly for now: that it cannot be lightly killed for no better reason than our own delectation.’03/23/20 - Emily Thomas, Three reasons great thinkers liked armchair travel, in: The Conversation.03/23/20- Catherine Malabou, To Quarantine from Quarantine: Rousseau, Robinson Crusoe, and “I”, in: Critical Inquiry Blog03/22/20 - Georg Kohler, Coronavirus und das nackte Leben – warum Giorgio Agamben falschliegt, in: Neue Zürcher ZeitungTranslated Title: Coronavirus and the naked life - Why Giorgio Agamben is wrong.Central quote (tr.): Philosophy that is not able to recognise the difference between adequately well-informed analysis of everyday life and reflecting on the big picture, fails itself.03/22/20 - Richard Yetter Chappell, "Lives" are the Wrong Measure, in: Philosophy, et cetera.The author, via e-mail: ‘[I] respond to Lübbe's objection to Italy's life-year based triage.’Lübbe’s piece is linked below.03/21/20 - Chris Bush, VIU professor suggests rational thinking in scary times [interview with Laura Shanner], in: Nanaimo News Bulletin.03/21/20 - Michael Huemer, Thoughts on a Pandemic, in: Fake Nous.Central quote: ‘Public health officials may be experts on things like the spread of infectious disease, but they are not experts on these economic costs, so we can’t just take their word on what is the best overall response to the virus.’03/21/20 - Nikolaj Schultz, The climatic virus in an age of paralysis, in: Critical Inquiry Blog03/19/20 - Olivia Goldhill, Ethicists agree on who gets treated first when hospitals are overwhelmed by coronavirus [interview with Lydia Dugdale, Joshua Parker, Alex John London, Anders Sandberg, Brian D. Earp, David Chan, Vanessa Bentley], in: Quartz.Central quote: ‘Quartz spoke with eight ethicists, all of whom agreed that in such dire situations, those who have the best chance of surviving get priority. Despite the unanimity, all agreed that this decision is far from easy and should not be taken lightly.’03/19/20 - Martin Lenz, Governmental gaslighting? Communication in the corona crisis, in: Handling Ideas.Central quote: ‘I’d like to suggest that gaslighting might be an important feature of crisis communication. This is not only important to recognise for restoring one’s sanity, but also in order to prepare for coping in the aftermath of the crisis.’03/18/20 - Giorgio Agamben, Nach Corona: Wir sind nurmehr das nackte Leben, in: Neue Zürcher ZeitungTranslated Title: We are merely naked life.03/18/20 - Silvia Panizza, Philosopher in Italian coronavirus lockdown on how to think positively about isolation, in: The Conversation.03/18/20- Slavoj Žižek, Is barbarism with a human face our fate?, in: Critical Inquiry Blog03/17/20 - Giorgio Agamben, Chiarimenti, in: Quodlibet.Translated title: Clarifications.Translated by Adam Kotsko at An und für sich.Central quote: ‘People have been so habituated to live in conditions of perennial crisis and perennial emergency that they don’t seem to notice that their life has been reduced to a purely biological condition and has not only every social and political dimension, but also human and affective.’03/16/20 - Weyma Lübbe, Corona Triage. A Commentary on the Triage Recommendations by Italian SIAARTI Medicals Regarding the Corona Crisis, in: Verfassungsblog.Central quote: ‘My trust in the (Italian) public health system has not been raised by this publication. Rather, it suffered.’Central quote: ‘In times of shortage, [rights] do not have to be maximized, but rather specified in a just manner. This, also, is burdensome. But one can do it without getting involved in reflections on how much residual value a human life might have.03/16/20 - Joshua Parker and Mikaeil Mirzaali, The Moral Cost of Coronavirus, in: Blog | Journal of Medical Ethics.Central quote: ‘As coronavirus forces doctors to make deep and challenging ethical decisions it may also ask healthcare professionals at the coalface to sacrifice their fundamental values for the greater good.’03/16/20 - Melody Schreiber, The Risky Race for a Quick Coronavirus Vaccine [interview with Nicholas Evans, Jeffrey Kahn, ], in: The New Republic.Central quote: ‘The consent form that participants sign before enrolling in the trial hasn’t been released, but [Evans] and Kahn agreed that truly informed consent is a fundamental part of conducting human testing—especially in a fast-tracked process.’Central quote: ‘[H]ow vaccine makers conduct themselves in this health emergency could have ripple effects for years to come.’03/16/20 - Henrik Syse, Philosophy and Ethics in the Age of Corona Virus, in: Prio | Blogs.Central Quote: The comparison [between war and the pandemic] has both strengths and weaknesses. This is certainly akin to a war when it comes to much of the drama of what is happening and what is required of us. [...] On the other hand, this is not war. No one is attacking us with weapons.’03/14/20 - Rocco Ronchi, The virtues of the virus, in: European Journal of Psychoanalysis.Translated from the Italian by Emma Catherine Gainsforth.Part of Coronavirus and philosophers, a series that collects the controversy around Agambens criticisms of governmental responses to the ongoing pandemic.03/13/20 - Slavoj Žižek, Der Mensch wird nicht mehr derselbe gewesen sein: Das ist die Lektion, die das Coronavirus für uns bereithält, in: Neue Zürcher Zeitung.Translated Title: Man will no longer be the same: That is the lesson that the Coronavirus has in store for us.03/10/20 - Françoise Baylis, Coronavirus in Vietnam observations from a canadian, in: Impact Ethics.Central quote: ‘The most interesting and important facet of the government’s response to the risk of coronavirus is an impressive public education campaign, for locals and tourists, aimed at increasing public awareness and changing behaviours.’03/10/20 - Anastasia Siapka, How to navigate the coronavirus ‘infodemic’, in: CiTiP Blog.03/09/20 - Alex Broadbent, Thinking Rationally About Coronavirus COVID-19, in: Daily Nous.Central quote: ‘In what follows, I will first explain the panic in terms of two factors, being ignorance, and the importance of various rates, which is whose epidemiological importance is not always understood. Second, I will set out some considerations that would structure a rational cost-benefit analysis of contemplated public health interventions.[...]Finally, I will outline a challenge for many public health interventions, applying in this case to the problem of panic-buying of various items.’03/11/20 - Isaac Chotiner, Medical Ethics and the Novel Coronovirus [interview with Christine Mitchel], in: The New Yorker.Central quote: ‘During our conversation [...] we discussed what ethicists tend to focus on during a health crisis, how existing health-care access affects crisis response, and the importance of institutions talking through the ethical implications of their decisions.’03/08/20 - Divya Dwivedi and Shaj Mohan, The Community of the Forsaken: A Response to Agamben and Nancy, in: European Journal of Psychoanalysis.Piece published in in collaboration with AntinomiePart of Coronavirus and philosophers, a series that collects the controversy around Agambens criticisms of governmental responses to the ongoing pandemic.03/06/20 - Adam Kotsko, The Invisible Hand Wants You Dead, in: The New Republic.Central quote: ‘Thankfully, Santelli’s novel idea of infecting the populace with the coronavirus was greeted with the opprobrium it deserved, compelling him to apologize for his suggestion Friday morning.’03/05/20 - Sergio Benvenuto, Benvenuto in clausura, in: Antinomie.Translated title: Welcome to SeclusionEnglish translation available from the European Journal of Psychoanalysis.03/05/20 - Massimo Pigliucci, On COVID-19 and pandemics: a Stoic perspective, in Medium.The author applies the classical stoic triad - physics, logic and ethics - to the current pandemic.Was updated on 04/01/20.03/02/20 - Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri, The Two Dark Sides of COVID-19, in: Project Syndicate.Central quote: ‘Markets at which live animals are sold and slaughtered should be banned not only in China, but all over the world.’February02/28/20 - Roberto Esposito, Curati a oltranza, in: Antinomie.Translated title: Cured to the Bitter EndEnglish translation available from the European Journal of Psychoanalysis.02/27/20 - Jean-Luc Nancy, Eccezione virale, in: AntinomieTranslated Title: Viral Exception.English translation available from the European Journal of Psychoanalysis.02/26/20 - Giorgio Agamben, L’invenzione di un’epidemia, in: Quodlibet.Translated title: The invention of an epidemic.English translation available from the European Journal of PsychoanalysisThe piece provoked much responses. The European Journal of Psychoanalysis has collected some of them in Coronavirus and philosophers. Many of which take issue Agambens criticisms of governmental responses to the ongoing pandemic. Insofar as the responses were not dated, they don’t have unique entries in this bibliography. As the series itself is not dated either, I list the names of those non-dated pieces here, in order of appearance: Forget about Agamben by Sergio Benvenuto, The Threat of Contagion (translated from the Italian by Emma Catherine Gainsforth) by Massimo De Carolis, What carries us on by Shaj Mohan, A Much Too Human Virus by Jean-Luc Nancy.January01/22/20 - Slavoj Žižek, My Dream of Wuhan, in: Welt.Central quote: ‘My plea is just that even horrible events can have unpredictable positive consequences.’Central quote ‘But those who should be truly ashamed are all of us around the world thinking just about how to quarantine the Chinese.’Date of Publication not specifiedGregory Fernando Pappas, Philosophical Medidations on the Covid-19 Pandemic: What have we learned so far?, on: personal homepage.Central quote: ‘I will outline the philosophical lessons so far and will suggest a holistic, pluralistic, and communal approach as a way forward; based on the insights and hopes of philosophers like Dussel, Chomsky, Hostos, Dewey, King, Addams, Ortega, Villoro, Peirce, Boggs, as well as Native American philosophers.’Non-Written Media (Television, Podcasts, etc.)April04/20/20- Mark Linsenmayer, Political Philosophy and the Pandemic [Podcast], in: Partially Examined Life04/16/20 - A Panel on COVID-19 with Govind Persad, Paul Farmer, and Allison Stanger, organised by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.Chair of the panel discussion: Danielle Allen.Takes place online. See the website for details on how to attend.04/13/20 - Op1, at NPO.Late night talk show. Interviews with Ab Osterhaus, Marion de Bruin, Marcel van Roosmalen, Bert Wijbenga, Jort Kelder, Marli Huijer and Auke-Florian Hiemstra.The fragment with philosopher, and former family physician, Marli Huijer and journalist Jort Kelder can be found here.Marli Huijer says that there are more concerns to be taken into account than saving the lives of the elderly.Philosophy Professor Michael Kremer on how the coronavirus is impacting religious holidays, on CGTN America.Interview conducted by Roee Ruttenberg.Emphasis on the Catholic perspective.04/11/20 - The Philosophy of Travel, Now We Can't, on Nightlife, at ABCSuzanne Hill interviews the philosopher Emily Thomas and the authors Pamela Watson and Liam Pieper.04/08/20 -Ethics in COVID-19 World with Arthur Caplan and Greg Pence, at Straight Talk MD with Frank SweenyFrank Sweeny interviews Arthur L. Caplan and Gregory E. Pence.04/08/20 - Triage in an Italian ICU During the Coronavirus Pandemic, at Practical Ethics Channel.‘Katrien Devolder talks to Italian intensive care specialist and Chair of the Ethics Section of the Italian Society for Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Medicine, Dr Marco Vergano, about his experiences at his ICU during the coronavirus pandemic, and the difficult decisions he is faced with on a daily basis about who to treat and who to let die.’Also see the blog Practical Ethics.04/03/20 - Take it like a Stoic: coping in the time of coronavirus, on the radio show Ideas, on CBC.Nahlah Ayed interviews philosopher Massimo Pigliucci and journalist Brigid Delaney.04/02/20 - Scobel - Corona, Ethik und der Mensch, at 3sat.Translated title: Scobel - Corona, ethics and the human beingGert Scobel interviews Markus Gabriel, Claudia Wiesemann and Stefan Brunnhuber.Available till 04/02/25.04/02/20 - What caused the coronavirus pandemic? Peter Singer interview, at Practical Ethics Channel.‘In this Thinking Out Loud interview, Katrien Devolder talks to philosopher Peter Singer about the causes of the coronavirus outbreak and what ought to be done to prevent future pandemics.’Also see the blog Practical Ethics.04/01/20 - Nederland op slot: maar welke prijs betalen we daarvoor? Interview with Marli Huijer by news magazine Nieuwsuur, at NOS.Interview conducted by Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal.Translated title: The Netherlands locked: but what price are we paying for that?Transcription was published one day later by Nieuwsuur, at NOS.Central quote: ‘I don’t quite understand why the mortality rate is mentioned daily on the evening news.’March03/30/20 - Helpful Or Harmful? The Ethics Of Shopping Online During The Pandemic, at Public radio from Western Michigan University.Sehvilla Mann interviews Fritz Allhoff.03/25/20 - Thinking Rationally About Scary Things - Coronavirus Response: A Lecture by Dr. Laura Shanner, at Vancouver Island University [Cancelled].Harbourliving.ca reports that the talk would have dealt with the following questions: ‘ How can we make sense of incomplete data? How can we separate true measures of risk from mere feelings of risk? What would be more helpful than buying bulk toilet paper or surgical masks?’See Public Philosophy 03/21/20.03/15/20 - Coronavirus situation is way too serious to be in panic. interview with Slavoj Žižek at Russia Today.February02/25/20 - Midday On Ethics With Dr. Jeffrey Kahn: Questions To Consider With Coronavirus, at WYPR 88.1 FM - Your NPR News StationTom Hall interviews Jeffrey Kahn.Misc.CALL FOR PAPERS COVID-19: Assessing Ethical Responses to the PandemicFrom the website: ‘The Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) seeks brief papers from individuals, agencies or organisations evaluating ethical responses to the COVID-19 pandemic for publication in the Perspectives section of the journal. Asian countries have been at the forefront of tackling the virus, and important lessons can be learned about good ethical practice.’‘This is a rapid response call. We guarantee a final decision within 30 days after online submission via the Editorial Manager. Successful submissions will be published – with free access – in the next available issue of Asian Bioethics Review.’Visit the website of the ABR for further information, including potential research questions.Some philosophers are using the #covidethics to discuss ethical problems related to the currently ongoing pandemic.University of Central Florida researches solitude during quarantine.Principal Investigator: Bruce JanzRooted in Phenomenology and Cognitive ScienceResearch team includes the philosophers Bruce Janz and Shaun Gallagher.Actively looking for participants in their online survey.Research description is available here.