abstract: This thesis explores concept of "global bioethics" in both its development as well as its current state in an effort to understand exactly where it fits into the larger field of bioethics. Further, the analysis poses specific questions regarding what it may contribute to this field and related fields, and the possibility and scope associated with the continued development of global bioethics as its own discipline. To achieve this, the piece addresses questions regarding current opinions on the subject, the authorities and their associated publications related to global bioethics, and what the aims of the subject should be given its current state. "Global Bioethics" is a term that, while seen frequently in bioethics literature, is difficult to define succinctly. While many opinions are provided on the concept, little consensus exists regarding its application and possible contributions and, in some cases, even its very possibility. Applying ethical principles of health and medicine globally is undoubtedly complicated by the cultural, social, and geographical considerations associated with understanding health and medicine in different populations, leading to a dichotomy between two schools of thought in relation to global bioethics. These two sides consist of those who think that universality of bioethics is possible whereas the opposing viewpoint holds that relativism is the key to applying ethics on a global scale. Despite the aforementioned dichotomy in addressing applications of global bioethics, this analysis shows that the goals of the subject should be more focused on contributing to ethical frameworks and valuable types of thinking related to the ethics health and medicine on a global scale. This is achieved through an exploration of bioethics in general, health as a function of society and culture, the history and development of global bioethics itself, and an exploration of pertinent global health topics. While primarily descriptive in nature, this analysis critiques some of the current discussions and purported goals surrounding global bioethics, recommending that the field focus on fostering valuable discussion and framing of issues rather than the pursuit of concrete judgments on moral issues in global health and medicine. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.S. Biology 2011

The question this dissertation seeks to address is if the process of disease mongering can be ethically assessed. Chapter one provides a broad scope of the ethical challenge of disease mongering, UNESCO model framework, ADHD and PMDD. Chapter two examines disease mongering and its driving forces in detail. Chapter three provides an overview of the UNESCO model framework. Chapter four ethically examines disease mongering in conjunction with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Chapter five examines disease mongering in association with Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD). Chapter six concludes that examined through the UNESCO model ethical framework disease mongering is occurring for both ADHD and PMDD, and provides remarks for the addressing this in the future. / McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts; / Health Care Ethics / PhD; / Dissertation;

There is no overlapping criterion providing a basis for attaining balance between individual and population oriented ethical concerns generated in the pandemic and the epidemic interventions. The shortfall leads to competing individual and population interests that hamper the effective management of pandemics and epidemics. The libertarian model focuses on advancing individual rights. The epidemiological model focuses upon population health. The social justice model focuses on a broader perspective than individual rights and population health to include universal human rights. <br>This dissertation suggests a Mixed Interests Ethics Model (MIEM) to ethically negotiate a balance between the individual and population interests in pandemics and epidemics. MIEM involves a combination of models (libertarian, epidemiological, and social justice) that shed light on substantive ethical principles of each model (e.g. autonomy, solidarity, and common good); which in turn require procedural standards (i.e. necessity, reasonableness, proportionality, and harm avoidance) to negotiate between the principles when they conflict. <br>The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights provides a hermeneutical context for applying MIEM in so far as it places MIEM within the context of promoting rights (individual and human) by considering the general ethical tension between individual and universal rights as explained by the UNESCO Declaration. / McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts; / Health Care Ethics / PhD; / Dissertation;