Mr. C was a 62-year-old Chinese-American man suffering from end stage liver disease secondary to Hepatitis C. While on the waiting list for a liver, he was told that his current condition and MELD score were not advanced enough to expect a liver transplant for several years. Because of his chronic fatigue, he asked if there was any way to speed up the process but was told that was not possible.

“I want my leadership to be judged by the impact of our work on the health of two populations: women and the people of Africa.” This is how Dr. Margaret Chan, the current Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), described her leadership mission. The reason behind this mission is evident. Women and girls constitute 70% of the world’s poor and 80% of the world’s refugees. Gender violence against women aged 15–44 is responsible for more deaths and disability than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war. An estimated 350,000 to 500,000 women still die in childbirth every year. The negative health implications of absolute poverty are worst in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Hence, Chan aims to have the biggest impact on the world’s poorest people.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editors Kenneth V. Iserson and Barry Morenz at bmorenz@email.arizona.edu.

The highest attainable standard of health is a fundamental human right, which has been part of international law since 1948. States and their institutions are the primary duty bearers responsible for ensuring that human rights are respected, protected, and fulfilled. However, more recently it has been argued that pharmaceutical companies have a coresponsibility to fulfill the human right to health. Most prominently, this coresponsibility has been expressed in the United Nations (UN) Millennium Goal 8 Target 4. “In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries.”

Animals, in the age of biotechnology, are the subjects of a myriad of scientific procedures, interventions, and modifications. They are created, altered, and experimented upon—often with highly beneficial outcomes for humans in terms of knowledge gained and applied, yet not without concern also for the effects upon the experimental subjects themselves: consideration of the use of animals in research remains an intensely debated topic. Concerns for animal welfare in scientific research have, however, been primarily directed at harm to and suffering of animal subjects and their prevention. Little attention has been paid to the benefits research might potentially produce for animals themselves and the interests that some animals may therefore have in the furtherance of particular avenues of science.

Health is higher on the international agenda than ever before, and improving the health of poor people is a central issue in development. Poor people suffer from far higher levels of ill health, mortality, and malnutrition than do those better off, and their inadequate health is one of the factors keeping them poor or for their being poor in the first place. Health is a crucially important economic asset, particularly for poor people. Their livelihoods depend on it. When poor people become ill or injured, their entire household can become trapped in a downward spiral of lost income and high healthcare costs—a vicious circle of poverty and ill health.

Healthcare ethics has become part of the standard curriculum of students in the health professions. The goals of healthcare ethics education are to give students the skills they need to identify, assess, and address ethical issues in clinical practice and to develop virtuous practitioners. Incorporating the medical humanities into medical school, for example, is intended to foster empathy and professionalism among students and to provide mechanisms for enhanced physician well-being. Yet, despite the long-standing inclusion of the humanities in nursing curricula, increases in the amount and kinds of scientific knowledge essential for clinical practice has resulted in the erosion of the “humanistic arts” from nursing education. One potential solution to this challenge comes with the increase in interprofessional education, where students in a variety of healthcare professions programs come together to learn about issues common to all healthcare fields.

Readers are invited to contact Greg S. Loeben in writing at Midwestern University, Glendale Campus, Bioethics Program, 19555 N. 59th Ave., Glendale, AZ 85308 (gloebe@midwestern.edu) regarding books they would like to see reviewed or books they are interested in reviewing.

Firstly I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners whose land we are meeting on today. I acknowledge that I stand before you on the shoulders of Indigenous Peoples globally, past and present that have been marginalised, had their knowledge exploited, and generally had their inherent native title rights ripped off for the financial and health benefit of others.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editors Kenneth V. Iserson and Barry Morenz at bmorenz@email.arizona.edu.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editors Kenneth V. Iserson and Barry Morenz at bmorenz@email.arizona.edu.

In a widely cited 2003 article, DiMasi, Hansen, and Grabowski estimated the cost of pharmaceutical research and development to be $1.1 billion (year 2000 U.S. dollars) per new medicine coming onto the market in 2001. They also estimate that this cost is going up at a real (inflation-adjusted) rate of 7.4% annually. According to these estimates, the innovation cost per new medicine today is about $2.1 billion (year 2000 U.S. dollars) or $2.65 billion (year 2010 U.S. dollars).