Sydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Jan;7(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007407.
Owing to its potential human, social and economic costs, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is frequently referred to as a threat to health security. Simultaneously, health security and the preservation of antimicrobials are often described as a global public good. However, how the term 'public good' is used in the context of health security, and the values that underpin it, remains ambiguous. Policymaking is never value-free, and a better examination of such values is critical to understanding how issues such as AMR are problematised and how policy decisions are informed.
We used McDougall's version of critical interpretive synthesis to capture the recurring concepts and arguments within public policy, political science and applied ethics literature on AMR. Articles were analysed by identifying recurring ideas and developing themes across the literature.
A total of 77 papers were included in our review. In the context of health security and AMR, the concept of 'public good' appears to be used interchangeably with 'common good', reflecting confusion, but sometimes meaningful differences, regarding how antimicrobials, as a good, are conceived. Main approaches to addressing AMR are statism, globalism and regionalism, which appeal to different values in guiding policymakers. Common justificatory values underpinning preservation of antimicrobials as a public good were prevention of harm, solidarity, justice and rights.
The findings suggest that within the literature there is a lack of conceptual clarity as to whether antimicrobials constitute a public good or a common good. Moreover, the way in which antimicrobials are conceived and the approaches through which AMR as a threat to health security is addressed appear to be grounded in values that are often implicit. Being explicit about the values that underpin AMR and health security is not simply an intellectual exercise but has very real policy and programmatic implications.
由于其对人类、社会和经济的潜在成本,抗菌药物耐药性(AMR)常被视为对健康安全的威胁。同时,健康安全和抗菌药物的保护经常被描述为一种全球公共利益。然而,在健康安全背景下,“公共利益”一词的使用方式及其所依据的价值观仍不明确。决策从来都不是没有价值的,更好地审视这些价值观对于理解 AMR 等问题是如何被问题化的以及政策决策是如何得到通知的至关重要。
我们使用了麦克杜格尔(McDougall)的批判解释综合版本,以捕捉公共政策、政治学和应用伦理文献中关于 AMR 的反复出现的概念和论点。通过识别文献中的反复出现的想法和发展主题来分析文章。
我们的综述共纳入 77 篇文章。在健康安全和 AMR 的背景下,“公共利益”这一概念似乎与“共同利益”可互换使用,反映了人们对于作为一种商品的抗菌药物的概念理解上的混淆,但有时也存在着有意义的差异。解决 AMR 的主要方法是国家主义、全球主义和地区主义,它们在指导决策者方面诉诸于不同的价值观。作为公共利益保护抗菌药物的共同正当性价值观是预防伤害、团结、正义和权利。
研究结果表明,在文献中,对于抗菌药物是否构成公共利益或共同利益缺乏概念上的明确性。此外,对抗菌药物的概念化方式以及将 AMR 作为健康安全威胁的处理方式似乎基于通常是隐含的价值观。明确 AMR 和健康安全所依据的价值观不仅仅是一种智力上的练习,而是具有非常真实的政策和项目影响。