<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org">
<title>Public Health Ethics - recent issues</title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org</link>
<description>Public Health Ethics - RSS feed of recent issues (covers the latest 3 issues, including the current issue) </description>
<prism:eIssn>1754-9981</prism:eIssn>
<prism:publicationName>Public Health Ethics</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1072-7928</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/3?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/10?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/21?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/30?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/39?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/53?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/64?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Public Health Ethics: A Manifesto]]></title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dawson, A., Verweij, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/phe/phn009</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Public Health Ethics: A Manifesto]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>2</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorial</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/3?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Fair Process and the Redundancy of Bioethics: A Polemic]]></title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/3?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Recent doctrine in both national and international organisations concerned with public health planning and resource allocation has it that direct ethical justification of substantive decisions is so difficult as to be impossible. Instead, we should agree on criteria of procedural justice and reach decisions whose justification lies in how they are arrived at, rather than any direct ethical justification on the ground of substantive moral principles. In this polemical article, I argue that this amounts to a serious dereliction of intellectual duty on the part of the bioethics community. Our role in these settings is to produce and defend the best substantive arguments we can. Failing to do this makes bioethicists at best redundant and at worst leads us to seriously defective conclusions. The argument is illustrated by analysis of the ethical frameworks for resource allocation under the UNAIDS &lsquo;3 by 5&rsquo; programme and for pandemic influenza planning.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ashcroft, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/phe/phn004</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Fair Process and the Redundancy of Bioethics: A Polemic]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>9</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/10?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Ethics, Tuberculosis and Globalization]]></title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/10?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This article reviews ethically relevant history of tuberculosis and recent developments regarding extensively drug resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB). It argues that tuberculosis is one of the most important neglected topics in bioethics. With an emphasis on XDR-TB, it examines a range of the more challenging ethical issues associated with tuberculosis: individual obligations to avoid infecting others, coercive social distancing measures, third-party notification, health workers' duty to treat contagious patients, and international justice. In each of these cases, key philosophical questions are highlighted and the need for empirical research/information is demonstrated.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Selgelid, M. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/phe/phn001</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Ethics, Tuberculosis and Globalization]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>20</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>10</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/21?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Parental Responsibility and Obesity in Children]]></title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/21?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The paper presents a brief overview of current knowledge about (i) the link between parental behaviour and lifestyle and childhood obesity, (ii) the many other factors influencing overweight and obesity rates in children and (iii) the effectiveness of interventions in children who are already overweight and obese. On the basis of this, it is analysed to what extent it is meaningful to attribute causal and moral responsibility to parents in theory and in practice. It is argued that although there is a sense in which many parents are causally and morally responsible for the obesity of their children, most parents are not blameworthy and the attribution of parental responsibility in most cases does not justify intervention in the family context by society on behalf of the children. In the analysis of the possible justification of more general interventions, parallels are drawn to the distinction between hard and soft forms of paternalism.<qd><p><I>Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22: 6)</I></p>
</qd><qd>
<p><I>For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. 1. (Samuel 3: 13)</I></p>
</qd></p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Holm, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/phe/phn007</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Parental Responsibility and Obesity in Children]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>29</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>21</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/30?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Privacy, Democracy and the Politics of Disease Surveillance]]></title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/30?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Surveillance is a cornerstone of public health. It permits us to recognize disease outbreaks, to track the incidence and prevalence of threats to public health, and to monitor the effectiveness of our interventions. But surveillance also challenges our understandings of the significance and role of privacy in a liberal democracy. In this paper we trace the century-long history of public health surveillance in the United States situating that history in the context of the broad social, political, and ideological forces that have shaped our conceptions of privacy. Although we focus here on the United States, the debates over privacy that unfolded in the 1960s were repeated in many European nations. The themes we explore here, then, provide a framework for examining the relationship between privacy and public health in other contexts.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fairchild, A. L., Bayer, R., Colgrove, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/phe/phn008</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Privacy, Democracy and the Politics of Disease Surveillance]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>38</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>30</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/39?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Goals of Public Health: An Integrated, Multidimensional Model]]></title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/39?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>While promoting population health has been the classic goal of public health practice and policy, in recent decades, new objectives in terms of autonomy and equality have been introduced. These different goals are analysed, and it is demonstrated how they may conflict severly in several ways, leaving serious unclarities both regarding the normative issue of what goal should be pursued by public health, what that implies in practical terms, and the descriptive issue of what goal that actually is pursued in different contexts. A basic conflict of perspective is handled by integrating the ideas of public health striving for health-related autonomy and equality, resulting in a prioritarian oriented population approach to health-related autonomy. This integrated goal is demonstrated to constrain itself in several ways attractive from the point of view of the classic goal, but several serious problems remain. For this reason, a model where all of the three goals are integrated into one coherent structure where they can be assigned varying degrees of importance relative to the level of population health is described. It is argued that this model avoids the problems set out earlier, and is actually normatively preferable to the classic goal alone. It is furthermore argued that the model may be employed as a useful tool for descriptive ethics, as well as a vehicle for international harmonisation of public health policies. A number of practical implications regarding, e.g., the importance of respecting autonomy and the allocation of public health resources are noted, as are a battery of questions for further research.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Munthe, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/phe/phn006</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Goals of Public Health: An Integrated, Multidimensional Model]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>52</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>39</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/53?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Global Health Law: A Definition and Grand Challenges]]></title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/53?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>As a consequence of rapid globalization, the need for a coherent system of global health law and governance has never been greater. This article explores the health hazards posed by contemporary globalization on human health and the consequent urgent need for global health law to facilitate effective multilateral cooperation in advancing the health of populations equitably. It sets forth the first definition of the emerging field of "global health law." After explicating the central features identified in the definition, the article examines the "grand challenges" to reaching the full potential of global health law to advance human health in just and effective ways.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gostin, L. O., Taylor, A. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/phe/phn005</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Global Health Law: A Definition and Grand Challenges]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>63</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>53</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/64?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Paternalism in Public Health Care]]></title>
<link>http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/64?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Measures in public health care (PHC) seem vulnerable to charges of paternalism: their aim is to protect, restore, or promote people's health, but the public character of these measures seems to leave insufficient room for respect for individual autonomy. This paper wants to explore three challenges to these charges: (i) Measures in PHC are aimed to protect, restore or promote &lsquo;deep autonomy&rsquo;, (ii) Measures in PHC are directed at the public and, as such, they do show respect for autonomy, and (iii) Some measures in PHC can be justified on grounds of justice and need not be defended as cases of &lsquo;justified paternalism&rsquo;. Although charges of unjustified paternalism in PHC might still be relevant, we should at least face these different challenges.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nys, T. R. V.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/phe/phn002</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Paternalism in Public Health Care]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>72</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>64</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original Article</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>