Solidarity and Antimicrobial Resistance

The concept of solidarity has received increasing attention in discussions about public health interventions, both as a possible justification for such interventions and as a possible motivating factors for individual action. This chapter provides an analysis of whether thinking through a lens of solidarity is likely to be helpful in devising strategies and policies to combat antimicrobial resistance. It first provides a critical overview of recent accounts of solidarity and argues that solidarity must be understood as a group based concept. It then applies this conception of solidarity to individual use of antibiotics through a case study of the antibiotic treatment of moderate and severe acne where it is argued that solidarity based thinking is valuable within a context of shared decision-making. Issues of policy making are then discussed and it is argued that basing a policy on solidarity on the one hand constrains the methods chosen to pursue public health goals, but that on the other hand solidarity may provide a strong and durable motivation to comply with such a policy. The limits of solidarity are explored in the final section and it is concluded that 1) the concept of solidarity does have an important role to play in thinking about public health, 2) considerations of solidarity can help us shape the goals and methods of public health policies in the area of antibiotics, and 3) that it is likely that solidarity may also be helpful in thinking through other contentious issues in public health.

Drug-Resistant Infection: Causes, Consequences, and Responses

This chapter provides an overview of the causes and consequences of, and possible policy responses to, the problem of drug resistance. Throughout, we highlight the ways that ethical and conceptual analyses can help to clarify relevant issues and improve policy, especially in public health, broadly conceived. Drug resistant pathogens arise, persist, spread, and produce harm due to a complex set of causes: biological processes (e.g., related to microbial evolution, the transmission of genetic determinants of resistance between microbes, and human host immunity) as well as human behaviors (e.g., antimicrobial use and hygiene practices) and other social factors (e.g., access to clean water, sanitation, healthcare, and antimicrobials). Furthermore, the ethically salient consequences of drug resistance include not only morbidity and mortality from untreatable infections (that are often inequitably distributed), but also broader effects on human freedom, privacy, and well-being. Public health ethicists are ideally placed to identify and weigh the values that might be promoted or compromised by potential policies and/or interventions that aim to address the problem of drug resistance. This chapter concludes by discussing potential policy responses, including those related to surveillance, research, animal and human antimicrobial use, the broader social determinants of health, infection control practices, and vaccination.

Antimicrobial Resistance and Social Inequalities in Health: Considerations of Justice

Within-country social inequalities in health have widened while global health inequalities have (with some exceptions) narrowed since the Second World War. On commonly accepted prioritarian and sufficientist views of justice and health, these two trends together would be acceptable: the wealthiest of the wealthy are pulling ahead, but the worst off are catching up and more are achieving sufficiency. Such commitments to priority or sufficiency are compatible with a common “development” narrative about economic and social changes that accompany changes (“transitions”) in population health. I set out a very simple version of health egalitarianism (without commitment to any particular current theory of justice) and focus on two common objections to egalitarianism. Priority and sufficiency both address the levelling down and formalism objections, but these objections are distinct: giving content to equality (I argue here) places in question the claimed normative superiority of priority and sufficiency. Using examples of the role of antimicrobials in both these trends – and the future role of AMR – I clarify (first) the multiple forms and dimensions of justice at play in health, and (second) the different mechanisms at work in generating the two current patterns (seen in life course narratives and narratives of political economy). The “accelerated transition” that narrowed global health inequalities is fed by anti-microbials (among other technology transfers). It did not accelerate but replaced the causal processes by which current HICs achieved the transition (growing and shared economic prosperity and widening political franchise). The impact of AMR on widening social inequalities in health in HICs will be complex: inequality has been fed in part by tertiary care enabled by antimicrobials; AMR might erode the solidarity underlying universal health systems as the well-off seek to maintain current expectations of curative and rehabilitative surgery and chemotherapy while AMR mounts. In light of both speculations about the impact of AMR on social and global health inequalities, I close with practical and with theoretical reflection. I briefly indicate the practical importance of understanding AMR from the perspective of health justice for policy response. Then, from a broader perspective, I argue that the content by which I meet the formalism objection demonstrates that the two trends (broadening within-country inequality and narrowing global inequality) are selective and biased samples of a centuries-long pattern of widening social inequalities in health. We are not in the midst of a process of “catching up”. In light of the long-term pattern described here, is the pursuit of sufficiency or priority morally superior to the pursuit of equality as a response to concrete suffering – or do they rationalize a process more objectively described as the best-off continuing to take the largest share of one of the most important benefits of economic development?

Antimicrobial Footprints, Fairness, and Collective Harm

This chapter explores the question of whether or not individual agents are under a moral obligation to reduce their ‘antimicrobial footprint’. An agent’s antimicrobial footprint measures the extent to which her actions are causally linked to the use of antibiotics. As such, it is not necessarily a measure of her contribution to antimicrobial resistance. Talking about people’s antimicrobial footprint in a way we talk about our carbon footprint may be helpful for drawing attention to the global effects of individual behaviour and for highlighting that our choices can collectively make a real difference. But can we be morally obligated to make a contribution to resolving a collective action problem when our individual contributions by themselves make no discernible difference? I will focus on two lines of argument in favour of such obligations: whether a failure to reduce one’s antimicrobial footprint is unfair and whether it constitutes wrongdoing because it is harmful. I conclude by suggesting that the argument from collective harm is ultimately more successful.

Global Governance of Anti-microbial Resistance: A Legal and Regulatory Toolkit

Recognizing that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a serious threat to global public health, the World Health Organization (WHO) has adopted a Global Action Plan (GAP) at the May 2015 World Health Assembly. Underscoring that systematic misuse and overuse of drugs in human medicine and food production is a global public health concern, the GAP-AMR urges concerted efforts across governments and private sectors, including pharmaceutical industry, medical professionals, agricultural industry, among others. The GAP has a threefold aim: (1) to ensure a continuous use of effective and safe medicines for treatment and prevention of infectious diseases; (2) to encourage a responsible use of medicines; and (3) to engage countries to develop their national actions on AMR in keeping with the recommendations. While the GAP is a necessary step to enable multilateral actions, it must be supported by effective governance in order to realize the proposed aims. This chapter has a threefold purpose: (1) To identify regulatory principles embedded in key WHO documents relating to AMR and the GAP-AMR; (2) To consider the legal and regulatory actions or interventions that countries could use to strengthen their regulatory lever for AMR containment; and (3) To highlight the crucial role of the regulatory lever in enabling other levers under a whole-of-system approach. Effective AMR containment requires a clearer understanding of how the regulatory lever could be implemented or enabled within health systems, as well as how it underscores and interacts with other levers within a whole-of-system approach.

The Super-Wicked Problem of Antimicrobial Resistance

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) – the progressive process by which microbes, such as bacteria, through evolutionary, environmental and social factors develop the ability to become resistant to drugs that were once effective at treating them – is a threat from which no one can escape. It is one of the largest threats to clinical and global health in the twenty-first century – inflicting monumental health, economic and social consequences. All persons locally and globally, and even all future persons yet to come into existence, all suffer the shared, interdependent vulnerability to this threat that will have a substantial impact on all aspects of our lives. For example, while reliable data are hard to find, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has conservatively estimated that, in Europe alone, AMR causes additional annual cost to health care systems of at least €1.5 billion, and is responsible for around 25,000 deaths per year. Furthermore, AMR significantly increases the cost of treating bacterial infections with an increase in length of hospital stays and average number of re-consultations, as well as the resultant lost productivity from increased morbidity. With a combined cost of up to $100 trillion to the global economy – pushing a further 28 million people into extreme poverty – this is one of the most pressing challenges facing the world. Most troublingly, if we do not succeed in diminishing the progression of AMR, there is the very real potential for it to threaten common procedures and treatments of modern medicine, including the safety and efficacy of surgical procedures and immunosuppressing chemotherapy. Some experts are warning that we may soon be ushering in a post-antibiotic area.

The Right to Refuse Treatment for Infectious Disease

One of the central tenets of contemporary bioethics is that mentally competent persons have a right to refuse medical treatment, even if the refusal might lead to the individual’s death. Despite this principle, laws in some jurisdictions authorize the nonconsensual treatment of persons with tuberculosis (TB) or other serious infectious diseases, on the grounds that doing so is necessary to protect the safety of others. This chapter argues that, in the vast majority of situations, overriding a refusal of treatment for infectious disease is not justifiable, as the risk to third parties can be avoided by the less restrictive alternative of isolating the patient. At the same time, it rejects the extreme position that the nonconsensual treatment of infectious disease is never appropriate. Instead, it concludes that compelling an individual to undergo treatment for infectious diseases may be ethically justifiable in exceptional situations if a refusal of treatment poses a grave risk to third parties, the treatment is not overly burdensome and has been established to be safe and effective, and less restrictive alternatives, including humanely isolating the patient, are not feasible under the circumstances. The burden should be on those seeking to compel unwanted treatment to demonstrate that these requirements have been met.

Conceptualizing the Impact of MDRO Control Measures Directed at Carriers: A Capability Approach

Many countries have implemented specific control measures directed at carriers of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in order to prevent further introduction and transmission of resistant organisms into hospitals and other healthcare related settings. These control measures may in many ways affect the lives and well-being of carriers of MDRO, resulting in complex ethical dilemmas that often remain largely implicit in practice. In this chapter, we propose to conceptualize the impact of MDRO control measures on the well-being of individual carriers in terms of capabilities and functionings. A capabilitarian framework for the ethical treatment of MDRO carriers commits us to conceptualize the harm done to carriers in terms of the impact that MDRO control measures have on what they are able to do or be. Adopting and adapting Nussbaum’s list of ten central human capabilities, we present a taxonomy of capabilities and functionings that are normatively relevant for the design and evaluation of MDRO control measures.

Hospital Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) and Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS): Dual Strategies to Reduce Antibiotic Resistance (ABR) in Hospitals

In this chapter we review the development of hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) since the nineteenth century and its increasingly important role in reducing the spread of antibiotic resistance (ABR). Excessive rates of hospital-acquired infection (HAI) fell dramatically, towards the end of the nineteenth century, because of improved hygiene and surgical antisepsis, but treatment remained rudimentary until effective antibiotics became widely available in the mid-twentieth century. While antibiotics had profound clinical benefits, their widespread appropriate and inappropriate use in humans and animals inevitably led to the emergence of antibiotic resistance (ABR). Within 50 years, this could no longer be offset by a reliable supply of new drugs, which slowed to a trickle in the 1980s. In hospitals, particularly, high rates of (often unnecessary) antibiotic use and ABR are exacerbated by person-to-person transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO), which have, so far, largely resisted the introduction of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs and repeated campaigns to improve infection prevention and control (IPC). Despite clear evidence of efficacy in research settings, both AMS and IPC programs are often ineffective, in practice, because of, inter alia, insufficient resourcing, poor implementation, lack of ongoing evaluation and failure to consult frontline staff. In this chapter we review reasons for the relatively low priority given to preventive programs despite the ethical obligation of healthcare organisations to protect current and future patients from preventable harm. The imminent threat of untreatable infections may provide an impetus for a shared organisational and professional commitment to promoting the cultural and behavioural changes needed to successfully reduce the burdens of ABR and drug-resistant HAIs.

Fairness in the Use of Information About Carriers of Resistant Infections

One standard menu of approaches to the prevalence of anti-microbial resistance diseases is to enhance surveillance, fund research to develop new antimicrobials, and educate providers and patients to reduce unnecessary antimicrobial use. The primarily utilitarian reasoning behind this menu is unstable, however, if it fails to take fairness into account. This chapter develops an account of the fair uses of information gained in public health surveillance. We begin by sketching information needs and gaps in surveillance. We then demonstrate how analysis of information uses is incomplete if viewed from the perspectives of likely vectors of disease who may be subjects of fear and stigma and likely victims who may be coerced into isolation or quarantine. Next, we consider aspects of fairness in the use of information in non-ideal circumstances: inclusive participation in decisions about information use, resource plans for those needing services, and assurances of reciprocal support. Fairness in information use recognizes the ineluctable twinning of victims and vectors in the face of serious pandemic disease.