John Pringle is a nurse (BScN) and epidemiologist (MSc), and currently a PhD candidate at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Joint Centre for Bioethics at the University of Toronto. His research focus is global health and humanitarian ethics.
Elysée Nouvet is a Post-Doctoral and CIHR Fellow in Humanitarian Health Care Ethics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. She holds a PhD in Social Anthropology from York University and a Masters in Visual Anthropology at Goldsmiths College, University of London. Elysee Nouvet has conducted a range of qualitative studies in Nicaragua, Canada, and Nepal, connected by their concern with a) suffering, its social production and survival, b) cross-cultural/cross-class responses to suffering, and b) the ethics and aesthetics of evoking distress and violence in visual and written media. Underlying her practice as a medical anthropologist is a commitment to bringing diverse healthcare stakeholders into dialogue to improve care. She is currently leading research on Nicaraguans’ perceptions and experiences of international medical missions (2013-15), and is co-investigator on a HAHSO innovation study (2014-16) aimed at identifying strategies to improve quality end-of-life communication in acute care. A member of the Canada-based Humanitarian Healthcare Ethics Research group, she co-curates and is a regular blog contributor to Picturing Humanitarian Healthcare, an open-access platform aimed at stimulating discussion, reflection, and debate on the ethics of producing in/of contexts of humanitarian crises: https://humanitarianhealthethics.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97&Itemid=283
Hello. I am the Chair of COST Action IS1201: Disaster Bioethics (https://DisasterBioethics.eu). This is an EU-funded network examining the ethical issues in disaster relief and disaster research. My background is in pharmacy and bioethics. I am Senior Lecturer in Ethics, Decision-Making & Evidence at the School of Nursing & Human Sciences at Dublin City University, Ireland. I'm also chair of the DCU Research Ethics Committee and Chair of the Academy of Fellows at the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity, Bannockburn, Illinois, USA.
Neil Arya, Carrie Bernard, Carolyn Beukeboom, Philippe Calain, Sonya de Laat, Lisa Eckenwiler, Laurie Elit, Veronique Fraser, Leigh-Anne Gillespie, Kirsten Johnson, Rachel Meagher, Stephanie Nixon, Catherine Olivier, Barry Pakes, Lynda Redwood-Campbell, Andreas Reis, Teuku Renaldi, Jerome Singh, Maxwell Smith, Johan Von Schreeb.
Every year armed conflicts, natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and extreme poverty have drastic consequences for millions of individuals across the globe.
A wide range of ethical questions is associated with the international response to humanitarian crises
In November 2012, the Humanitarian Health Ethics Forum (HHE Forum) was convened in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The objectives of this small expert meeting were to establish a community of practice of researchers and practitioners interested in humanitarian health ethics, and to identify priority avenues for advancing policy and practice related to ethics in humanitarian health action. The 29 participants included experienced humanitarian practitioners and coordinators from Canada and Europe, headquarters staff of international NGOs, academic researchers, two health professionals from Indonesia (with experience of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami), and a member of the ethics department of an inter-governmental organization. The HHE Forum was funded through a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
The HHE Forum focused on ethical issues arising in the delivery of healthcare and public health interventions during humanitarian crises, and considered how these issues are shaped by organizational structures and policies. Broader topics in ethics and humanitarianism, including accountability, complicity with others’ wrongdoing, the use of imagery of suffering in fundraising, and the political economy of crises, were discussed and their importance acknowledged.
In accordance with the meeting’s goal of identifying priority avenues for advancing humanitarian health ethics, and through a series of presentations, breakout sessions and extended discussions, participants identified key topic areas in the ethics of humanitarian healthcare and public health interventions. Small groups were assigned the task of identifying priority issues (Table 1) and generating research questions for each topic.
1. Experiences and perceptions of humanitarian health ethics
Humanitarian workers’ experiences and perceptions
2. Training and professional development initiatives for humanitarian health ethics
Pre-departure training
3. Ethics support for humanitarian health workers
Ethics support within field projects
4. Impact of policies and project structures on humanitarian health ethics
Organizational policies
5. Theoretical frameworks and ethics lenses
Clinical and public health ethics
Detailed notes were taken in each group by designated rapporteurs. Following the HHE Forum, discussion summaries were written and circulated to participants. A preliminary version of the research agenda was then developed based on the detailed notes of each working group, and subsequently refined through exchanges among the HHE Forum organizers and participants. The scope and focus of the five main topic areas were refined through this process. In this article, we present the results of this consensus building exercise and identify priority lines of inquiry related to key topic areas (compiled below in Table 2).
Humanitarian health work is undertaken in diverse settings, and includes many different actors. A better understanding of the experiences and perspectives of these groups and individuals is important to better inform efforts to improve methods of providing ethics support, ethics training, and normative analyses of situations that are sources of ethical struggle or uncertainty. The HHE Forum identified two priority areas of empirical inquiry connected to experiences of humanitarian health ethics.
Improved understanding of the ethical commitments, expectations and motivations of health workers will provide insight into how these actors approach humanitarian health ethics and how these orientations shape their experiences of specific situations. Investigation might also be undertaken of dual loyalty dilemmas for humanitarian workers. In addition, targeted empirical investigation of ethical issues experienced by those who participate in specific areas of humanitarian health work could lead to more detailed understanding of key ethical issues for specific groups of humanitarian health workers (such as for disaster first responders) and would be useful for developing tailored training or support mechanisms. Empirical investigation of ethical issues encountered by national health professionals and non-professionals working with international organizations would be particularly valuable and contribute to a better understanding of the experiences of a group of humanitarian workers that has received less attention to date. Key research questions related to humanitarian workers' experiences include the following:
What ethical commitments, motivations and expectations inform the actions and perspectives of humanitarian health workers? How do humanitarian health workers negotiate their commitments, motivations and expectations in relation to the values and commitments of the organization with which they are working? How are ethical issues experienced by particular groups of humanitarian health workers, including national staff of international organizations?
HHE Forum participants identified a particularly strong need for empirical research exploring humanitarian health ethics issues from the perspective of local community members. There is a tendency for humanitarian healthcare ethics discussions to be centered on experiences of expatriate humanitarian workers. Forum participants agreed that defining ethical practice in humanitarian healthcare is problematic if this qualification does not take into account values and perceptions of patients, national staff, or local communities. Exploring community perceptions of humanitarian healthcare can serve to sensitize humanitarian workers, including how humanitarian workers and agencies respond to or fail to respond to local needs, deliver care, allocate limited resources, and are generally perceived. Such investigations might provide insight for humanitarian workers related to the diverse expectations, concerns, or preferences related to humanitarian efforts that might exist between but also within populations. Such research is also important as it can alert humanitarian workers to factors facilitating or impeding the optimal delivery of humanitarian healthcare in a particular context,
How are humanitarian health ethics issues experienced by local communities not affiliated with humanitarian agencies, such as patients, national health workers, local organizations, and the local public more generally? How might social differences, such as class, caste, gender, religion, and other forms of social identity affect local perceptions and experiences of humanitarian healthcare? How can better understanding of the experiences and perceptions of local communities serve to inform and improve humanitarian health ethics? How should ethics guidance for humanitarian health work be responsive to and account for perceptions of humanitarian health ethics in communities where humanitarian projects are implemented?
Being adequately prepared has been asserted as a duty for clinicians taking part in humanitarian relief efforts: to “first, be prepared”.
Questions about how best to prepare humanitarian workers are thus now being raised, alongside debates regarding the merits of increased professionalization of the humanitarian sector
An important venue for ethics training is pre-departure courses. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding what formats (e.g. a separate ethics module or ethics as a cross-cutting theme), teaching approaches (e.g. role play, video, online resources) and content are most effective. These courses are often carried out over short periods (from a few days to a few weeks) in residential settings, and they are typically replete with information on many topics. Given the scope and breadth of content to be included in such training, a deliberate strategy for incorporating ethics content is needed to optimize ethics learning. Topics covered should include a review of relevant sources of ethics guidance and of the processes of ethics deliberation. Training should also be tailored to highlight the types of ethical challenges more likely to be encountered by the participants, for example examining triage decision-making for those embarking on acute relief projects.
Ethics training is also an opportunity for participants to examine their expectations and motivations for participating in humanitarian work
Which curricular components should be considered essential, and which ones optional, for inclusion in ethics pre-departure training? What are the most effective formats for including ethics in pre-departure training? How best can creative or innovative pedagogical approaches and tools be incorporated into ethics pre-departure training? How can training be tailored to the needs, organizational structures and cultures of particular organizations? What is the impact of pre-departure ethics training on how humanitarian workers approach decision-making, demonstrate resiliency, and experience moral distress?
Pre-departure training is not the only opportunity for education in humanitarian health ethics. Professional development and continuing education in the humanitarian sphere, such as summer schools and humanitarian training courses, are particularly important avenues for expanding ethics knowledge and related skills for humanitarian health workers. These courses may be offered by humanitarian organizations, by independent training programs, or affiliated with academic institutions. Finally, online training focusing on or incorporating humanitarian health ethics also provides an opportunity for self-guided learning. Incorporating ethics content in professional development initiatives is associated with the following questions:
What are the most pressing needs (for which groups, on which topics, in which locations) for professional development related to humanitarian health ethics? What professional development modalities and approaches are most effective for preparing practitioners for humanitarian health ethics? What are the impacts of increased professionalization for the ethics of humanitarian health work?
Individuals who contribute to health-related humanitarian projects – be they national or expatriate clinicians, coordinators, logisticians, or others – are likely to encounter ethical issues as they provide assistance to individuals and communities affected by crises. In response, humanitarian agencies and local teams adopt different approaches to addressing ethical issues both during humanitarian projects and in post-mission debriefings.
Different strategies have been implemented or proposed to support humanitarian workers as they respond to ethical issues in local project settings.
Local project teams may also create “moral spaces”
What are the most effective strategies to provide ethics support during different types of field projects? How do different models of in-field support influence the process, experience and outcomes of ethical decision-making? How can international and intercultural teams best work together to provide ethics support during humanitarian health work?
When faced with an ethical dilemma, field teams might derive benefit from ethics analysis tools that are designed to help structure deliberation and support comprehensive and rational decision-making. Current tools specific to humanitarianism include the Humanitarian Healthcare Ethics Analysis Tool (HHEAT)
How effective are existing ethics tools in achieving their assigned objectives when used in humanitarian health work? How can ethics tools be validated and improved through field testing and other evaluative methods? Is there a need for additional ethics tools to be developed, and if so, what should be their focus?
In some instances field teams identify the need for input from outside their immediate project. In such cases, local teams often seek advice from experienced colleagues at national or international headquarters. With expanded global communications, such forms of assistance may be available across large distances, including for ethically challenging situations.
During the HHE Forum some experienced humanitarian practitioners questioned whether having the opportunity to consult individuals with particular expertise in ethics would be beneficial for field teams and, if so, under what conditions. It is unclear what sort of model or approach for accessing an ethics resource person would be most feasible or useful, however, which raises the following question:
What are effective models of accessing and providing ethics guidance from outside local projects during humanitarian health work, including from experienced humanitarian practitioners and experts in humanitarian health ethics?
National and expatriate humanitarian health workers frequently work in high intensity and very stressful situations.
What is the relationship between moral distress and psychological stress in humanitarian health work? What is the extent and impact of moral distress in the humanitarian field? What are the sources or triggers of moral distress in humanitarian health work? How can organizations best support field workers experiencing moral distress, including through peer support or post-mission debriefing? In which ways might moral distress be positively channeled, such as through advocacy and solidarity efforts?
Ethical challenges in humanitarian health work arise in the context of field projects. These challenges are shaped in turn by a range of features including social, cultural and political dimensions of the crisis situation, as well as organizational structures and policies. How organizational policies and the design and implementation of local projects function as sources of ethical challenges, or function to either alleviate or augment ethical issues, are important yet complex areas of inquiry for humanitarian health ethics. Decisions related to the selection, initiation and ending of field projects raise a particularly thorny set of ethical questions for decision-makers, those affected by the decisions, and those who implement them.
The policies instituted by humanitarian organizations have an important influence on the ethics of humanitarian health work. Policies may function to increase or decrease ethical uncertainty or ethical challenges. Investigation of the impact of organizational policies on humanitarian health ethics is needed to better understand these dynamics, and how they unfold in field projects. A wide range of organizational policies might function to augment or alleviate ethical issues. Three sets of policies were underlined in discussions at the HHE Forum for further examination: 1) policies related to the differential roles, responsibilities and protections for national and expatriate staff
Which policies of humanitarian organizations are perceived to alleviate or exacerbate ethical issues in local field projects? What processes support the development of ethically sound policies that are responsive to the realities of field projects? How can field staff draw their organization’s attention to ethical issues in the field and contribute to improving the organization’s policies?
Decisions around where to establish projects, and when and how to end them, raise a unique set of considerations related to distributive justice.
Implementing a decision to end a project is especially difficult.
How can humanitarian organizations develop ethically robust approaches for funding and initiating local projects? What ethical issues are associated with closing field projects, and what would constitute an ethically robust exit strategy in various contexts? How ought the obligations of organizations be conceived where withdrawal from a project is contingent upon the actions of other actors?
Debate around normative and legal bases of humanitarian action has a long history.
While the ethics of humanitarianism have historically been conceived in deontological terms focusing on moral duties or obligations, consequentialist approaches focusing on outcomes are an increasingly common ethical frame for humanitarian action.
In current academic discourse and in health professional training in many countries, clinical ethics and public health ethics are prominent models for engaging ethical questions related to health. While clinical ethics remains dominant, public health ethics and global health ethics are expanding fields of scholarship.
When and how should clinical ethics and public health ethics be utilized to help resolve ethical dilemmas in humanitarian health work, and (how) can these approaches engage with each other? How can guidance derived from clinical or public health ethics be related to models of humanitarian ethics (including key humanitarian principles such as neutrality, independence and impartiality)? Does ‘humanitarian health ethics’ need to be articulated in greater detail as a distinct approach or are existing models sufficient?
Humanitarian action is an international and trans-cultural sphere of activity. Yet organizations and individuals originating from countries in the Global North largely dominate its decision-making and agenda-setting.
What are the implications of the international, cross-cultural and asymmetrical nature of humanitarian health work in terms of how ethical issues are understood and addressed?
In light of the challenges of implementing prominent health ethics models in the context of humanitarian health work, it is possible that efforts to rearticulate or reframe ethical values or principles for the particular context of humanitarian health work would be beneficial, especially in non-ideal moral contexts that defy easy delineations of right and wrong.
Other ethical theories, many of which already inform clinical and public health ethics, could also inform humanitarian health ethics.
Contributions and resources from institutional ethics and health policy ethics are also relevant to issues of humanitarian organizational structures and governance.
Analyses of normative foundations should also examine links between humanitarian health ethics and the legitimacy of humanitarian action, witnessing and human rights, the management of conflicts between local legal standards and ethical commitments of humanitarians, and accountability towards beneficiaries. Key questions related to these considerations are the following:
What are additional ethics lenses and sources of normative guidance that can enhance and enlarge ethical analysis in humanitarian health ethics? How do the normative foundations of humanitarian health ethics relate to concepts such as legitimacy, accountability, and human rights?
1. What ethical commitments, motivations and expectations inform the actions and perspectives of humanitarian health workers? 2. How do humanitarian health workers negotiate their commitments, motivations and expectations in relation to the values and commitments of the organization with which they are working? 3. How are ethical issues experienced by particular groups of humanitarian health workers, including national staff of international organizations? 4. How are humanitarian health ethics issues experienced by local communities not affiliated with humanitarian agencies, such as patients, national health workers, local organizations, and the local public more generally? 5. How might social differences, such as class, caste, gender, religion, and other forms of social identity affect local perceptions and experiences of humanitarian healthcare? 6. How can better understanding of the experiences and perceptions of local communities serve to inform and improve humanitarian health ethics? 7. How should ethics guidance for humanitarian health work be responsive to and account for perceptions of humanitarian health ethics in communities where humanitarian projects are implemented? 8. Which curricular components should be considered essential, and which ones optional, for inclusion in ethics pre-departure training? 9. What are the most effective formats for including ethics in pre-departure training? 10. How best can creative or innovative pedagogical approaches and tools be incorporated into ethics pre-departure training? 11. How can training be tailored to the needs, organizational structures and cultures of particular organizations? 12. What is the impact of pre-departure ethics training on how humanitarian workers approach decision-making, demonstrate resiliency, and experience moral distress? 13. What are the most pressing needs (for which groups, on which topics, in which locations) for professional development related to humanitarian health ethics? 14. What professional development modalities and approaches are most effective for preparing practitioners for humanitarian health ethics? 15. What are the impacts of increased professionalization for the ethics of humanitarian health work? 16. What are the most effective strategies to provide ethics support during different types of field projects? 17. How do different models of in-field support influence the process, experience and outcomes of ethical decision-making? 18. How can international and intercultural teams best work together to provide ethics support during humanitarian health work? 19. How effective are existing ethics tools in achieving their assigned objectives when used in humanitarian health work? 20. How can ethics tools be validated and improved through field testing and other evaluative methods? 21. Is there a need for additional ethics tools to be developed, and if so, what should be their focus? 22. What are effective models of accessing and providing ethics guidance from outside local projects during humanitarian health work, including from experienced humanitarian practitioners and experts in humanitarian health ethics? 23. What is the relationship between moral distress and psychological stress in humanitarian health work? 24. What is the extent and impact of moral distress in the humanitarian field? 25. What are the sources or triggers of moral distress in humanitarian health work? 26. How can organizations best support field workers experiencing moral distress, including through peer support or post-mission debriefing? 27. In which ways might moral distress be positively channeled, such as through advocacy and solidarity efforts? 28. Which policies of humanitarian organizations are perceived to alleviate or exacerbate ethical issues in local field projects? 29. What processes support the development of ethically sound policies that are responsive to the realities of field projects? 30. How can field staff draw their organization’s attention to ethical issues in the field and contribute to improving the organization’s policies? 31. How can humanitarian organizations develop ethically robust approaches for funding and initiating local projects? 32. What ethical issues are associated with closing field projects, and what would constitute an ethically robust exit strategy in various contexts? 33. How ought the obligations of organizations be conceived where withdrawal from a project is contingent upon the actions of other actors? 34. When and how should clinical ethics and public health ethics be utilized to help resolve ethical dilemmas in humanitarian health work, and (how) can these approaches engage with each other? 35. How can guidance derived from clinical or public health ethics be related to models of humanitarian ethics (including key humanitarian principles such as neutrality, independence and impartiality)? 36. Does ‘humanitarian health ethics’ need to be articulated in greater detail as a distinct approach or are existing models sufficient? 37. What are the implications of the international, cross-cultural and asymmetrical nature of humanitarian health work in terms of how ethical issues are understood and addressed? 38. What are additional ethics lenses and sources of normative guidance that can enhance and enlarge ethical analysis in humanitarian health ethics? 39. How do the normative foundations of humanitarian health ethics relate to concepts such as legitimacy, accountability, and human rights?
Questions are not lacking to animate further research on humanitarian health ethics. Researchers with diverse backgrounds and methodological expertise will be needed to develop this field of inquiry. Moving the humanitarian health ethics research agenda forward will be facilitated by interlinking research strategies and both empirical and conceptual approaches to inquiry.
One strategy to advance this agenda is to build upon existing knowledge and expertise in related domains, and establish bridges between ethics inquiry in humanitarian health work to other domains of practice and research fields. A second strategy is to establish interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations to examine humanitarian health ethics. Ideally, these collaborative activities will include more than cooperation across academic disciplines, but also partnerships between aid agencies and academics, and between researchers and field workers from across different regions of the world. Such collaboration will enable humanitarian health ethics to draw upon diverse sets of knowledge and experience.
An example of a new initiative to advance research related to ethics and disaster response is the European COST Action on Disaster Bioethics that was launched in 2012 (
The Humanitarian Health Ethics Network, or HumEthNet (
While there has been increased discussion of humanitarian health ethics within and among humanitarian agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and the academy, participants at the HHE Forum identified five main areas of inquiry that would benefit from careful and sustained analysis. First, there has been limited investigation of experiences related to humanitarian health ethics from the perspective of various groups, including those of members of host communities. Second, there is uncertainty about the most effective means to provide ethics training and professional development for those involved in humanitarian health work. Third, strategies and resources to provide ethics support during field projects would benefit from innovation, validation and refinement. The ethical implications of project planning and the development of policies within humanitarian organizations represent a fourth area of inquiry. Finally, normative and theoretical lenses to examine humanitarian health action remain underdeveloped. A set of important research questions is associated with each of these five topic areas. Together, these research questions constitute a research agenda for humanitarian health ethics. We encourage researchers and their institutional partners to engage with these questions. Doing so is an essential step towards strengthening the ethical grounding of humanitarian health practice and policy.
*Members of the HumEthNet who participated in the Humanitarian Health Ethics Forum and reviewed this manuscript include: Neil Arya MD, University of Waterloo; Carrie Bernard MD, McMaster University and University of Toronto; Carolyn Beukeboom RN; Renaud Boulanger BA, McGill University; Philippe Calain MD PhD, Médecins sans frontières – Switzerland; Sonya de Laat PhD(c), McMaster University; Lisa Eckenwiler, PhD, George Mason University; Laurie Elit MD, McMaster University; Veronique Fraser MSc RN, McGill University; Leigh-Anne Gillespie PhD (c), McMaster University; Matthew Hunt PT PhD, McGill University; Kirsten Johnson MD MPH, McGill University; Rachel Meagher RN, Canadian Red Cross; Stephanie Nixon PT PhD, University of Toronto; Elysée Nouvet PhD, McMaster University; Catherine Olivier PhD, University of Montreal; Dónal O'Mathúna PhD, Dublin City University; Barry Pakes MD MPH PhD (c), University of Toronto; John Pringle PhD (c), University of Toronto; Lynda Redwood-Campbell MD MPH, McMaster University; Andreas Reis MD, World Health Organization; Teuku Renaldi MD, Syiah Kuala University Faculty of Medicine; Lisa Schwartz PhD, McMaster University; Jerome Singh LLM PhD, University of KwaZulu Natal and University of Toronto; Maxwell Smith PhD (c), University of Toronto; Johan Von Schreeb MD PhD, Karolinska Institute.