Academic literature on the topic 'Harvard Advocate (Organization)'

AbstractThe collaborative London based non-governmental organization network ELRHA (Enhancing Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance) supports partnerships between higher education institutions and humanitarian organizations worldwide with the objective to enhance the professionalization of the humanitarian sector. While coordination and control of the humanitarian sector has plagued the response to every major crisis, concerns highlighted by the 2010 Haitian earthquake response further catalyzed and accelerated the need to ensure competency-based professionalization of the humanitarian health care work force. The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative sponsored an independent survey of established academically affiliated training centers in North America that train humanitarian health care workers to determine their individual training center characteristics and preferences in the potential professionalization process. The survey revealed that a common thread of profession-specific skills and core humanitarian competencies were being offered in both residential and online programs with additional programs offering opportunities for field simulation experiences and more advanced degree programs. This study supports the potential for the development of like-minded academic affiliated and competency-based humanitarian health programs to organize themselves under ELRHA's regional “consultation hubs” worldwide that can assist and advocate for improved education and training opportunities in less served developing countries.Burkle Jr FM, WallsAE, HeckJP, SorensenBS, CranmerHH, JohnsonK, LevineAC, KaydenS, CahillB, VanRooyenMJ. Academic affiliated training centers in humanitarian health, Part 1: program characteristics and professionalization preference of centers in North America. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013:28(2):1-8.

As national healthcare reform continues to place greater emphasis on providing high value care, measures designed to track clinical performance remain relatively overlooked. To that extent, several organizations have attempted to create objective grading systems to evaluate orthopaedic surgeon quality and performance. While attempting to address these issues, ProPublica’s Surgeon Scorecard has provoked national debate among patient advocates and healthcare providers. The methodology behind the Scorecard was developed at the Harvard School of Public Health with an aim to provide a more robust means of comparing surgical performance and outcomes for patients and healthcare organizations. Currently, the Scorecard assesses eight elective surgical procedures, including total knee and hip arthroplasty, through the use of the Medicare Claims Dataset. The impact of the Scorecard on orthopaedic practice has yet to be established. In this discussion, we analyze the Scorecard from the perspective of various stakeholders to identify its benefits and shortcomings, as well as offer direction for further improvement.

Douglas A. Johnson began his career as a human rights activist while earning his undergraduate degree in philosophy (1975) at Macalester College in the United States. He lived at Gandhi’s ashram in India to study nonviolent organizing (1969 to 1970). He served as the director of the Third World Institute in Minneapolis, MN, USA (1973–1979), which functioned as the international social justice program of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Johnson’s work included creating and running a political collective; leading development study tours into villages in Guatemala and Honduras; and investigating how transnational companies (e.g., Nestlé) were penetrating the developing world. He was the co-founder of the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT), elected national chairperson (1977–1985), and appointed as Executive Director (1978–1984). His role included representing INFACT before national and international organizations, the human milk substitute industry, the US Congress and Executive Branch, and the press. He initiated and coordinated the first international grass-roots consumer boycott (against Nestlé) in ten nations. He was also a co-founder of the International Nestlé Boycott Committee and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). He earned a Master’s in Public and Private Management at Yale University (1988). Then he became the first Executive Director of the Center for Victims of Torture, in Minneapolis (1988–2012), the first treatment center for torture victims in the US. Since 2013, he has been teaching human rights theory and practice, and sharing lessons he has learned, as a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University (US). (This interview was conducted via Zoom and transcribed verbatim. It has been edited for ease of readability. DJ refers to Doug Johnson and LD refers to Laura Duckett.)

In February 2016, the Florida State University (FSU) Faculty Senate passed an institutional Open Access (OA) Policy by unanimous vote,1 following the lead of many public and private universities across the United States. This was the culmination of many years of outreach and advocacy by OA champions at FSU, with a diverse, talented team of faculty and librarians making significant contributions along the way. This was also just one instance of a growing trend across North America and globally, with impressive growth in the number of OA policies and mandates adopted by research organizations and funders over the past decade. The adoption of an OA policy still presents many challenges with respect to policy compliance,2 and there are open questions about the long-term impact of different OA policy requirements and implementation models.3 At the same time, OA policy adoption remains an important goal for many institutions, a symbolic affirmation of faculty support for the principles of OA. An OA policy can help an institution raise the profile of its institutional repository (IR), invigorate outreach efforts and content recruitment, and, in the case of Harvard Model policies, safeguard the author rights of its faculty.4

Introduction:Climate change is intricately related to human health and impacts acute and chronic diseases leading to increased demands on the health care system.Aim:The University of Colorado Graduate Medical Education (GME) Fellowship in Climate Change and Health Science Policy (CCHSP) aims to train and equip a new generation of clinicians knowledgeable in climate science, proficient in climate health education, and facile with advocacy skills in order to become leaders in health policy.The CCHSP fellowship is funded by the Living Closer Foundation and hosted through the University of Colorado Department of Emergency Medicine. It is a one to two-year program tailored to the fellow’s specific goals with the opportunity to earn an MPH or MA. Clinical work is supported through the UCHealth network. Site placement occurs at partnering organizations, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and fieldwork throughout the world (via Colorado School of Public Health, Harvard FXB Center for Health and Human Rights).The first fellow was recruited in 2017 and has participated in and completed multiple projects: technical contributor to the US Government’s Fourth National Climate Assessment; advocating for women’s health policy in India; authorship of climate change and health resource documents for the World Bank; climate change leadership within SAEM; advocacy work with local and state governments; multiple research publications.Discussion:As climate change continues to impact human health with widespread consequences, we need effective and articulate leaders to affect policy. Although this Fellowship originated in Emergency Medicine, its competencies and structure are replicable for other clinical specialties. Climate change will be one of the core global health challenges for generations. A strong foundation of clinicians who understand its causes and the strategies for adaptation and mitigations are necessary to optimize health outcomes amidst this growing threat.

Abstract By modernizing cancer journal roles and editorial policy there may be greater rigor, biological understanding, scientific generalizability, reproducibility, transparency, and inclusion in cancer research. A path to identifying, addressing and correcting of structural inequities in health has been recently established by three major medical journal’s editorial policies to date and continue to be influenced by the reality of several reviews of publications over years and decades of clinical trials in cancer where specifically race and ethnicity demographics of study populations have been under-reported. The NIH has acknowledged the importance of demographic reporting and the FDA has established that data reporting in clinical trials is important. Question: What is needed to transform the ecosystem to ensure standards in promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity in cancer research? There are several considerations for stakeholders in organizations to address the issue of demographic reporting in research which includes both gender and race. There are metrics intrinsic to journal leadership which may include (i) demographics and diversity of leadership and editorial boards (ii) demographics and diversity of research staff. There are author considerations such as (i) diverse representation of authors (ii) Inclusion of a citation diversity statement, with attention to diversity in referenced citations (iii) statement of efforts and policy made to provide for inclusive environment, mentorship, and participation. Specifically, to ensure diversity and inclusion in non-therapeutic and therapeutic research, demographic and non-demographic variables in basic, clinical, and outcomes research should be considered by investigators and statisticians. For example, a statement of US and/or ex-US demographics of the disease, to whom the research question applies, and for whom the intervention is intended, and eligibility requirements that are scientifically justified. ASCO, AACR, MRCT- Harvard recommend action and policies for publicly reporting robust demographic characteristics on the enrolled clinical trial sample as part of the future modernization of journal editorial policy. The issue of demographic collection and reporting in research may be influenced by a variety of factors which include journal requirements, author demographics, investigator gender and race standards, bias, actual under-representation of the study population in the research consistent with the disease under study or rigor in the collection of demographics of the study population. There is a need for greater transparency of researcher, author standards, and journal requirements, leading to transparent research participant demographic reporting consistent with the research question. In all cases, the ability for any researcher, health care advocate or student to fully understanding the next question that needs to be answered and the demographics of study participants for inclusion is not fully optimized. Citation Format: Jeanne M. Regnante, Barbara Bierer, Karen Winkfield. Emerging editorial policies, researcher and author standards in promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity in research: A focus on cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A024.

A flood of emails from various list serves filled our in-boxes with the shocking news: One of the world’smost prominent African American scholars, Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard University, had beenaccused of breaking into his own home. After America’s psychological honeymoon prompted byelection of the first President of African descent, some were forced to grapple with questions ofwhether racism still exists. The aforementioned incident answers these inquiries with a resounding,"Yes." Examples of accounts of continued racial prejudice and discrimination suggest the need forsupport systems and advocacy groups such as minority academic and professional organizations tolevel the social playing field.

Photo by Waranont (Joe) on Unsplash INTRODUCTION The age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate among Black Americans is twice as high as White Americans.[1] This shocking evidence of health disparities, coincident to a public reckoning with the history of racism in the US, highlights the inverse relationship between race and health. Public sentiment may now favor addressing these pressing public health issues, but the sprawling healthcare system largely focuses on clinical care; it lacks tools to influence the social determinants of health at the point of the healthcare institution. Reinvigorating organizational ethics, sometimes called institutional ethics, may provide such a tool. BACKGROUND Organizational ethics became part of the healthcare system during the upheavals in financing and organization of health care in the 1990s. Yet organizational ethics in a medical setting must be more than simple business ethics.[2] Just as health care professionals are granted special privileges in society in exchange for adherence to a code of medical ethics and duties, healthcare organizations and systems also must now adhere to ethical requirements in exchange for their privileged position that includes the right to provide, and be reimbursed for, health care.[3] In the 1990s, ethicists began to discuss how clinical ethics committees might develop an understanding of business ethics in order to provide comprehensive organizational ethics reviews.[4] Some bioethicists even believed that the challenges of integrating business and medical care would compel ethics committees to look outward, engaging in public advocacy around ethical issues in health care.[5] To fulfill the mission of maintaining organizational ethics standards within the healthcare system, ethics committees would need to advocate for patients in the public sphere. Ethics committees might even take positions at odds with those of the healthcare institutions in which they work. Organizational ethics committees might have served as watchdogs, ensuring that healthcare organizations fulfill their fiduciary duties to their patients and communities. Bioethicists soon realized that the vision of a robust ethics committee involving administrators, bioethicists, and medical staff advising multiple divisions of large organizations and policy makers would fall short.[6] The two ethical systems remained separate: most organizations developed a combination of a clinical ethics committee adjunct to the medical staff with a compliance department to oversee organizational ethics. However, organizational ethics really goes beyond compliance; it “cannot be addressed by focusing narrowly on business matters or by quasi-legal mechanisms to assure that behavior conforms to pre-established codes or rules.”[7] As a result, there is no centralized entity with power in each healthcare institution that can treat healthcare inequities as an institutional ethical failure that must be addressed. Current research on specific inequitable outcomes due to bias in clinical care includes specialties such as maternal care,[8]cardiac care,[9] pain management, and technology.[10] Implicit bias and racist clinical interactions, once identified, may be addressed through staff training and other interventions. Yet the ethics of clinical care requires little attention to the social determinants of health such as high levels of police surveillance in the community which may cause increased rates of hypertension,[11] pre-term birth,[12] and may affect mental health. Leaving these problems to the public health realm disconnects health practitioners and institutions from the ability to remedy some of the causes of health problems in their patients. Simply treating the effects of racism in the practice of medicine is not curative – it is really palliative care.[13] ANALYSIS The term “organizational ethics” is too limited to encompass the scope of change needed to address structural racism and the social determinants of health in today’s healthcare institutions. Structural Justice Ethics[14] better describes a plan and a process that requires the healthcare system and professionals to look both inward and outward to take on the structural causes of racism and health disparities. Building on organizational and clinical ethics, Structural Justice Ethics could amplify the research on systemic issues such as the effects of social determinants of health, racism in clinical care, and necessary advocacy with the local community. To be effective and complete, organizations should recognize duties to patients that arrive at their doorstep, damaged by generations of subordination and racism. To ethically treat patients who have experienced racism, the system and health practitioners must acknowledge and work to reduce the inequities in society that cause harm to their health in the clinical setting. Accreditation companies such as The Joint Commission could amend their standards to require top-rated healthcare organizations to form new Structural Justice Ethics committees in their organizations, taking affirmative steps to acknowledge the ethical implications of racism and the social determinants of health. Many bioethicists have already called for the field of bioethics to address racism as an ethical issue in healthcare, some even calling for a new Black Bioethics.[15] This frustration with the profession of bioethics has developed in other areas, such as disability ethics and feminist ethics, and reflects a belief that mainstream bioethics is a rigidly principlist endeavor. The education of new bioethicists is grounded in practical philosophy graduate programs, entwined with academia’s history of exclusivity. As a relatively young academic subject, bioethics has the potential to expand and grow into a more practical and justice-oriented tool, learning how to counter the overly individualistic bioethics that has roots in our racist and Protestant-dominant history.[16] Expanding organizational ethics into Structural Justice Ethics in health care could bring Black bioethicists into the center of healthcare ethics and provide the tools to implement changes needed to address racism in health care. Healthcare organizations should not expect Black healthcare practitioners to take on these Structural Justice Ethics roles as “extra” work. Too often, people of color are expected to bear the burden of explaining racism and working to eradicate it.[17]The Structural Justice Ethics committee should be a new model, centered in ethics and policy, with professional-level staffing that reflects the racial and ethnic makeup of the community it serves. Calling on bioethicists as moral agents in the world, and particularly within the medical system, to act as social justice advocates against systemic injustice in a system where they have privilege and power seems logical and surprisingly necessary. “Going forward, bioethics needs to engage with the nuances of race with the same vigor that it has approached discussions of moral theories and biotechnologies.”[18] Graduate-level bioethics programs have expanded significantly in recent years, with 45 current master’s level programs,[19] and there should be a wealth of professionals ready to oversee the role of encouraging and monitoring justice in the system. These programs focus primarily if not exclusively on the dominant paradigm of bioethics, yet as ethics programs, they should be able to course-correct and embrace greater diversity in people and thought. Structural Justice Ethicists can guide healthcare organizations to become learning institutions open to the idea that bias and inequity are ethical harms that they can and should address. Some may question whether such close attention to Black health care needs amounts to reparations or “reverse” discrimination, a controversial topic in our political discussions. However, when posed as an ethical duty of health care, there is no option to continue to treat Black people unethically. Of course, healthcare systems will have to balance competing budgetary interests; even with unlimited funding, disparities in health care would not disappear overnight.[20] In a fair process where decisionmakers must weigh the demands of stakeholders, the ethical obligation to address the social determinants of health must have an advocate. Moreover, setting high ethical standards is not the same as government spending to make reparations for past harms. In fact, Structural Justice Ethics does not look to the past at all but looks to the needs of subordinated communities of patients as they exist today. Any community that is harmed by structural injustice in health care can be the focus of a Structural Justice Ethics review. The Joint Commission and other accrediting organizations can require healthcare organizations to meet the challenges of health inequities by adopting new Structural Justice Ethics committees, just as The Joint Commission added organizational ethics to its requirements in 1995. Admittedly, Structural Justice Ethics is an amorphous concept and its role within healthcare institutions needs to be refined and assigned specific tasks. However, there is substantial research on the social determinants of health; the challenge for the Structural Justice Ethics is to recommend systemic changes from within, rather than beginning this research anew. The Joint Commission’s Center for Transforming Healthcare, as a data-driven and process-oriented patient safety organization, is well-primed to take on this task. The Center can collaborate with existing academic and governmental health equity researchers to set short- and long-term goals for Structural Justice Ethics committees. To begin with, a Structural Justice Ethics committee can pose the question of “how is racism operating here” and: a. connect with current research on specific inequitable outcomes due to bias in medicine and bring best practices to the attention of medical staff. b. work with human resources and medical staff to support and increase diverse populations in the workforce. c. ensure that implicit bias and other trainings are properly provided to all staff, as well as expanding the scope of such trainings to address developing areas such as epistemic harm, or the harm of one’s own physical experience being discounted by medical professionals.[21] The health care workforce should also be trained in Title VI law.[22] d. evaluate research data on the organization’s own potential disparate outcomes due to race, to determine areas for improvement both within and outside of the organization. e. invite the local community to come in for listening and learning sessions, to better understand the community’s concerns and perspective on health equity. f. improve advocacy on behalf of community members to state and local authorities, effectively taking a stand for health care equity for local stakeholders. Dr. Camara P. Jones describes a collaborative endeavor like this as critical to anti-racist work and likens it to adopting a community health center model where the health facility takes responsibility for the health and well-being of the local community.[23] AMA policy already encourages this type of effort in opinion 8.11 of the AMA Code, which states that, alongside diagnosis and treatment, “physicians also have a professional commitment to prevent disease and promote health and well-being for their patients and the community.”[24] A theoretical framework and concrete plan for radical improvement in the ethics of the healthcare system will help all healthcare professionals. Some healthcare practitioners may not recognize their own biases and need training to meet best practices standards in light of health inequities. Other healthcare practitioners may feel disillusioned because they know they face individual patients suffering the effects of structural racism, yet they can treat only the illness.[25] The scope of the problem may overwhelm practitioners, and without a belief that the system is committed to improvement, practitioners may become numb to the suffering, a trauma reaction that affects both the practitioners and their patients. Unfortunately, when current medical students ask the question, “what can I do to fight systemic racism?” the answer is usually “call it out.” But putting the onus on newly minted individual practitioners to call out racism in an established structure is unrealistic, unfair, and destined to be unsuccessful. Just as we should not expect subordinated individuals to “overcome” their social determinants of health, we should not expect health professionals to make this change individually. Addressing injustices in the institution and adjusting medical ethics accordingly can alleviate the burden of these ethical dilemmas. CONCLUSION Structural Justice Ethics must be woven into the ethics committees at the institutional level. Organizational ethics committees can evaluate healthcare organizations by their integrity, i.e., how well their actions fulfill the moral obligations they have undertaken.[26] Our healthcare system has avoided the moral obligation to address racism and the social determinants of health by focusing on clinical ethics, leaving public health to academics and the government. Expanding organizational ethics to take on the issues of structural injustice within each healthcare institution will help organizations better measure, change, and ultimately fulfill their moral obligations to their patients and communities. [1] “Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths Analyzed by Race and Ethnicity,” APM Research Lab, accessed June 1, 2021, https://www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race. [2] M. Constantinescu, “Seeing the Forest beyond the Trees: A Holistic Approach to Health-Care Organizational Ethics,” in Contemporary Debates in Bioethics: European Perspectives, 2018, 86–96, https://doi.org/10.2478/9783110571219-009. [3] See Norman Daniels, Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 219. [4] Elizabeth Heitman and Ruth Ellen Bulger, “The Healthcare Ethics Committee in the Structural Transformation of Health Care: Administrative and Organizational Ethics in Changing Times,” HEC Forum 10, no. 2 (June 1, 1998): 152–76, 162, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008865603499. [5] Cohen, Cynthia B. "Ethics Committees as Corporate and Public Policy Advocates." The Hastings Center Report 20, no. 5 (1990): 36+. Gale Academic OneFile (accessed May 6, 2021). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A8998890/AONE?u=nysl_oweb&sid=AONE&xid=84a1cade. [6] Linda L. Emanuel, “Ethics and the Structures of Healthcare Special Section: Issues in Organization Ethics and Healthcare,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9, no. 2 (2000): 151–68, 166. [7] George Khushf and Rosemarie Tong, “Setting Organizational Ethics within a Broader Social and Legal Context,” HEC Forum 14, no. 2 (June 2002): 77–85, 78. [8] Olivia Pham, Usha Ranji Published: Nov 10, and 2020, “Racial Disparities in Maternal and Infant Health: An Overview - Issue Brief,” KFF (blog), November 10, 2020, https://www.kff.org/report-section/racial-disparities-in-maternal-and-infant-health-an-overview-issue-brief/. [9] Eberly Lauren A. et al., “Identification of Racial Inequities in Access to Specialized Inpatient Heart Failure Care at an Academic Medical Center,” Circulation: Heart Failure 12, no. 11 (November 1, 2019): e006214, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006214. [10] Michael W. Sjoding et al., “Racial Bias in Pulse Oximetry Measurement,” New England Journal of Medicine 383, no. 25 (December 17, 2020): 2477–78, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2029240. [11] Alyasah Ali Sewell et al., “Illness Spillovers of Lethal Police Violence: The Significance of Gendered Marginalization,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 44, no. 7 (July 22, 2020): 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1781913. [12] Brad N. Greenwood et al., “Physician–Patient Racial Concordance and Disparities in Birthing Mortality for Newborns,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 35 (September 1, 2020): 21194–200, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913405117. [13] The term “palliative care” as applied to patients suffering from the social determinants of health was used by Dr. Michelle Morse at a webinar entitled “Medical Stereotypes: Confronting Racism and Disparities in US Health Care: A Health Policy and Bioethics Consortium” presented by the Harvard Petrie-Flom Center on February 12, 2021. [14] Linda L. Emanuel coined the term “Structural Ethics” in 2000. This term did not seem to generate much interest from the bioethics community at the time. Her explanation of this term is consistent with my thinking, although I expand it to address the health system as an entity, and focus on improving health equity. [15] Keisha Shantel Ray, “Black Bioethics and How the Failures of the Profession Paved the Way for Its Existence | Bioethics.Net,” www.bioethics.net, August 6, 2020, http://www.bioethics.net/2020/08/black-bioethics-and-how-the-failures-of-the-profession-paved-the-way-for-its-existence/; Yolonda Y. Wilson, “Racial Injustice and Meaning Well: A Challenge for Bioethics,” The American Journal of Bioethics 21, no. 2 (February 1, 2021): 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1866875. [16] See Catherine Myser, “Differences from Somewhere: The Normativity of Whiteness in Bioethics in the United States,” The American Journal of Bioethics 3, no. 2 (May 2003): 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1162/152651603766436072. [17] Ushe Blackstock, “Why Black Doctors like Me Are Leaving Academic Medicine,” STAT (blog), January 16, 2020, https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/16/black-doctors-leaving-faculty-positions-academic-medical-centers/. [18] Zamina Mithani, Jane Cooper, and Boyd J. Wesley, “Race, Power, and COVID-19: A Call for Advocacy within Bioethics,” The American Journal of Bioethics21, no. 2 (2021): 11–18, 13 https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1851810. [19] “Graduate Programs,” The Hastings Center, accessed 2 June, 2021, https://www.thehastingscenter.org/publications-resources/bioethics-careers-education/graduate-programs-2/. [20] Norman Daniels, Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly, at 299. [21] Ian James Kidd and Havi Carel, “Epistemic Injustice and Illness,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 34, no. 2 (2017): 172–90, https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12172. [22] Ruqaiijah Yearby, “Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: Putting an End to Separate and Unequal Health Care in the United States 50 Years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Health Matrix 25, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): 1–33, at 11. [23] Jones CP, Maybank A, Nolen L, Fields N, Ogunwole M, Onuoha C, Williams J, Tsai J, Paul D, Essien UR, Khazanchi, R. “Episode 5: Racism, Power, and Policy: Building the Antiracist Health Systems of the Future.” The Clinical Problem Solvers Podcast. https://clinicalproblemsolving.com/episodes. January 19, 2021. [24] Sienna Moriarty, “AMA Policies and Code of Medical Ethics’ Opinions Related to Health Promotion and Community Development,” AMA Journal of Ethics 21, no. 3 (March 1, 2019): 259–61, https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.259. [25] Constantinescu, “Seeing the Forest beyond the Trees,” at 92. [26] Ana Smith Iltis, “Organizational Ethics: Moral Obligation and Integrity,” in Institutional Integrity in Health Care, ed. Ana Smith Iltis, Philosophy and Medicine (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2003), 175–82, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0153-2_10.

The field of global surgery has gained attention since the publication of the Lancet Commission landmark report in 2015. The authors estimated that 5 billion people worldwide do not have access to safe, affordable surgical and anesthesia services. The paper “Global Neurosurgery: The Unmet Need,” published in 2016, launched the modern global neurosurgery era by advocating for the system-level thinking and programs required to address limited neurosurgical care in low-resource settings. At present, many individuals, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are involved in the global neurosurgery movement. These include the Program in Global Surgery and Social Change at Harvard Medical School, Duke Global Neurology and Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell Tanzania Neurosurgery Project, CURE Children’s Hospital of Uganda, and the Virtue Foundation in Mongolia. Nonetheless, as global neurosurgery efforts continue to expand, it is essential to align global neurosurgery activity in order to prevent duplication of effort. In 2019, the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) established the Global Neurosurgery Committee (GNC) to promote access to safe, affordable, and timely neurosurgical care worldwide. The GNC initially included five primary objectives – Amplify, Align, Advance, Assimilate, and Advocate – with the sixth objective, Communication, added in 2021. In this manuscript, we provide an update on the Align objective team.

The Journal of the International Child Neurology Association (JICNA), was officially launched in February 2015 although the proceedings of the 13th International Child Neurology Congress in 2014 was, published under the platform in the previous year. The JICNA editorial team was announced, and constituted of members of the International Child Neurology Association (ICNA) executive board with representation from all geographical regions and across all major child neurology disciplines. The launch of JICNA represented a major milestone in the history of the association, founded in 1973 with the goal of promoting education and research in child neurology worldwide. Open access publishing in child neurology hardly existed before, and JICNA thus became the first fully open access multidisciplinary peer reviewed ejournal in child neurology. JICNA has steadily progressed over its initial years and now in its 7th year, is poised to establish itself as a major open access platform for disseminating scientific research in child neurology. Closely integrated with its parent organization the ICNA and ICNApedia, the association’s flagship knowledge environment platform, JICNA editorial policy is aimed at both facilitating access to and disseminating research, particularly from resource poor settings. As part of this remit, JICNA adopts the association's consensus position on scientific issues treated within its published articles. The special articles published from the ICNA Advocacy Committee on genetic testing for rare disorders [1] and other articles in the pipeline on “vaccination against measles” and “stem cell therapy in neurological disorders” reflect the journal’s ethos. The ongoing global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov2) and its disease (COVID-19) has highlighted more than ever the importance and need for open science. The dissemination of scientific research following the outbreak has no doubt brought to attention the significant changes that have occured in the field of scientific publishing, with how research is communicated and how researchers engage, share and contribute. The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a spate of preprint articles, which, while potentially life-saving, also risk dissemination of poor-quality work. While we are not against such author-led rapid publication workflows, we would advise caution against its potential risks. The pandemic again has shown that timely access of researchers to information and knowledge is key to fighting global diseases and problems that threaten humanity. It remains a sad truth that researchers across the world remain cut off from a vast body of information and knowledge that ought to have been readily accessible by them. The scientific community has long been aware of the hindrance of traditional publishing models to the dissemination of scientific research. Research can only flourish through collaboration, and it is imperative that research is made more visible by breaking cost, language and geographic barriers. Although governments, major universities and funders, such as Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust, have long acknowledged and taken steps to promote this, urging their academics to consider open access venues for publishing their work, there still remains much progress to be made. The four main factors considered by authors in deciding their choice of journal are visibility, cost, prestige and speed. “Brand-name” journals are still favoured by authors to promote their academic career prospects. While an open-access publishing model in itself is not a hindrance to a journal’s success, it is acknowledged that JICNA should gain an impact factor and improve its visibility further. JICNA has now been consistently publishing, following a stringent peer review, original articles, trial reports, case studies and timely reviews, since its inception in 2015. JICNA is currently indexed in Google Scholar, CrossRef and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and will, this year, be making a submission to PubMed Central® & MEDLINE®. The journal also subscribes to robust archiving systems including CLOCKSS & PORTICO. In the current environment, where the open access publishing model is at danger of being exploited by predatory publishers with lax editorial policies and peer-reviews risk perpetuating bad research, a journal like JICNA certainly assumes greater significance. The ICNA is committed to maintaining JICNA free of cost to its readers, with an expedited publication workflow while ensuring strict peer-review standards. The JICNA editorial board is extremely thankful to all the peer reviewers and members of the editorial board, without whose support this would not have been possible. JICNA follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines and is committed to upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. The journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, permitting any user to “distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work,” provided that they credit the original authors in all cases, ensuring the copyright remaining with the main author. We would like to once again thank all authors, peer-reviewers and the editorial board for their valuable contributions to the success of the journal. We are looking to further expand our panel of reviewers and editorial board from across the various subspecialties in child neurology.

Nationalism: Past as Prologue began as a single volume being compiled by Ad Akande, a scholar from South Africa, who proposed it to me as co-author about two years ago. The original idea was to examine how the damaging roots of nationalism have been corroding political systems around the world, and creating dangerous obstacles for necessary international cooperation. Since I (Bruce E. Johansen) has written profusely about climate change (global warming, a.k.a. infrared forcing), I suggested a concerted effort in that direction. This is a worldwide existential threat that affects every living thing on Earth. It often compounds upon itself, so delays in reducing emissions of fossil fuels are shortening the amount of time remaining to eliminate the use of fossil fuels to preserve a livable planet. Nationalism often impedes solutions to this problem (among many others), as nations place their singular needs above the common good. Our initial proposal got around, and abstracts on many subjects arrived. Within a few weeks, we had enough good material for a 100,000-word book. The book then fattened to two moderate volumes and then to four two very hefty tomes. We tried several different titles as good submissions swelled. We also discovered that our best contributors were experts in their fields, which ranged the world. We settled on three stand-alone books:” 1/ nationalism and racial justice. Our first volume grew as the growth of Black Lives Matter following the brutal killing of George Floyd ignited protests over police brutality and other issues during 2020, following the police assassination of Floyd in Minneapolis. It is estimated that more people took part in protests of police brutality during the summer of 2020 than any other series of marches in United States history. This includes upheavals during the 1960s over racial issues and against the war in Southeast Asia (notably Vietnam). We choose a volume on racism because it is one of nationalism’s main motive forces. This volume provides a worldwide array of work on nationalism’s growth in various countries, usually by authors residing in them, or in the United States with ethnic ties to the nation being examined, often recent immigrants to the United States from them. Our roster of contributors comprises a small United Nations of insightful, well-written research and commentary from Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia, China, India, South Africa, France, Portugal, Estonia, Hungary, Russia, Poland, Kazakhstan, Georgia, and the United States. Volume 2 (this one) describes and analyzes nationalism, by country, around the world, except for the United States; and 3/material directly related to President Donald Trump, and the United States. The first volume is under consideration at the Texas A & M University Press. The other two are under contract to Nova Science Publishers (which includes social sciences). These three volumes may be used individually or as a set. Environmental material is taken up in appropriate places in each of the three books. * * * * * What became the United States of America has been strongly nationalist since the English of present-day Massachusetts and Jamestown first hit North America’s eastern shores. The country propelled itself across North America with the self-serving ideology of “manifest destiny” for four centuries before Donald Trump came along. Anyone who believes that a Trumpian affection for deportation of “illegals” is a new thing ought to take a look at immigration and deportation statistics in Adam Goodman’s The Deportation Machine: America’s Long History of Deporting Immigrants (Princeton University Press, 2020). Between 1920 and 2018, the United States deported 56.3 million people, compared with 51.7 million who were granted legal immigration status during the same dates. Nearly nine of ten deportees were Mexican (Nolan, 2020, 83). This kind of nationalism, has become an assassin of democracy as well as an impediment to solving global problems. Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times (2019:A-25): that “In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, the political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt documented how this process has played out in many countries, from Vladimir Putin’s Russia, to Recep Erdogan’s Turkey, to Viktor Orban’s Hungary. Add to these India’s Narendra Modi, China’s Xi Jinping, and the United States’ Donald Trump, among others. Bit by bit, the guardrails of democracy have been torn down, as institutions meant to serve the public became tools of ruling parties and self-serving ideologies, weaponized to punish and intimidate opposition parties’ opponents. On paper, these countries are still democracies; in practice, they have become one-party regimes….And it’s happening here [the United States] as we speak. If you are not worried about the future of American democracy, you aren’t paying attention” (Krugmam, 2019, A-25). We are reminded continuously that the late Carl Sagan, one of our most insightful scientific public intellectuals, had an interesting theory about highly developed civilizations. Given the number of stars and planets that must exist in the vast reaches of the universe, he said, there must be other highly developed and organized forms of life. Distance may keep us from making physical contact, but Sagan said that another reason we may never be on speaking terms with another intelligent race is (judging from our own example) could be their penchant for destroying themselves in relatively short order after reaching technological complexity. This book’s chapters, introduction, and conclusion examine the worldwide rise of partisan nationalism and the damage it has wrought on the worldwide pursuit of solutions for issues requiring worldwide scope, such scientific co-operation public health and others, mixing analysis of both. We use both historical description and analysis. This analysis concludes with a description of why we must avoid the isolating nature of nationalism that isolates people and encourages separation if we are to deal with issues of world-wide concern, and to maintain a sustainable, survivable Earth, placing the dominant political movement of our time against the Earth’s existential crises. Our contributors, all experts in their fields, each have assumed responsibility for a country, or two if they are related. This work entwines themes of worldwide concern with the political growth of nationalism because leaders with such a worldview are disinclined to co-operate internationally at a time when nations must find ways to solve common problems, such as the climate crisis. Inability to cooperate at this stage may doom everyone, eventually, to an overheated, stormy future plagued by droughts and deluges portending shortages of food and other essential commodities, meanwhile destroying large coastal urban areas because of rising sea levels. Future historians may look back at our time and wonder why as well as how our world succumbed to isolating nationalism at a time when time was so short for cooperative intervention which is crucial for survival of a sustainable earth. Pride in language and culture is salubrious to individuals’ sense of history and identity. Excess nationalism that prevents international co-operation on harmful worldwide maladies is quite another. As Pope Francis has pointed out: For all of our connectivity due to expansion of social media, ability to communicate can breed contempt as well as mutual trust. “For all our hyper-connectivity,” said Francis, “We witnessed a fragmentation that made it more difficult to resolve problems that affect us all” (Horowitz, 2020, A-12). The pope’s encyclical, titled “Brothers All,” also said: “The forces of myopic, extremist, resentful, and aggressive nationalism are on the rise.” The pope’s document also advocates support for migrants, as well as resistance to nationalist and tribal populism. Francis broadened his critique to the role of market capitalism, as well as nationalism has failed the peoples of the world when they need co-operation and solidarity in the face of the world-wide corona virus pandemic. Humankind needs to unite into “a new sense of the human family [Fratelli Tutti, “Brothers All”], that rejects war at all costs” (Pope, 2020, 6-A). Our journey takes us first to Russia, with the able eye and honed expertise of Richard D. Anderson, Jr. who teaches as UCLA and publishes on the subject of his chapter: “Putin, Russian identity, and Russia’s conduct at home and abroad.” Readers should find Dr. Anderson’s analysis fascinating because Vladimir Putin, the singular leader of Russian foreign and domestic policy these days (and perhaps for the rest of his life, given how malleable Russia’s Constitution has become) may be a short man physically, but has high ambitions. One of these involves restoring the old Russian (and Soviet) empire, which would involve re-subjugating a number of nations that broke off as the old order dissolved about 30 years ago. President (shall we say czar?) Putin also has international ambitions, notably by destabilizing the United States, where election meddling has become a specialty. The sight of Putin and U.S. president Donald Trump, two very rich men (Putin $70-$200 billion; Trump $2.5 billion), nuzzling in friendship would probably set Thomas Jefferson and Vladimir Lenin spinning in their graves. The road of history can take some unanticipated twists and turns. Consider Poland, from which we have an expert native analysis in chapter 2, Bartosz Hlebowicz, who is a Polish anthropologist and journalist. His piece is titled “Lawless and Unjust: How to Quickly Make Your Own Country a Puppet State Run by a Group of Hoodlums – the Hopeless Case of Poland (2015–2020).” When I visited Poland to teach and lecture twice between 2006 and 2008, most people seemed to be walking on air induced by freedom to conduct their own affairs to an unusual degree for a state usually squeezed between nationalists in Germany and Russia. What did the Poles then do in a couple of decades? Read Hlebowicz’ chapter and decide. It certainly isn’t soft-bellied liberalism. In Chapter 3, with Bruce E. Johansen, we visit China’s western provinces, the lands of Tibet as well as the Uighurs and other Muslims in the Xinjiang region, who would most assuredly resent being characterized as being possessed by the Chinese of the Han to the east. As a student of Native American history, I had never before thought of the Tibetans and Uighurs as Native peoples struggling against the Independence-minded peoples of a land that is called an adjunct of China on most of our maps. The random act of sitting next to a young woman on an Air India flight out of Hyderabad, bound for New Delhi taught me that the Tibetans had something to share with the Lakota, the Iroquois, and hundreds of other Native American states and nations in North America. Active resistance to Chinese rule lasted into the mid-nineteenth century, and continues today in a subversive manner, even in song, as I learned in 2018 when I acted as a foreign adjudicator on a Ph.D. dissertation by a Tibetan student at the University of Madras (in what is now in a city called Chennai), in southwestern India on resistance in song during Tibet’s recent history. Tibet is one of very few places on Earth where a young dissident can get shot to death for singing a song that troubles China’s Quest for Lebensraum. The situation in Xinjiang region, where close to a million Muslims have been interned in “reeducation” camps surrounded with brick walls and barbed wire. They sing, too. Come with us and hear the music. Back to Europe now, in Chapter 4, to Portugal and Spain, we find a break in the general pattern of nationalism. Portugal has been more progressive governmentally than most. Spain varies from a liberal majority to military coups, a pattern which has been exported to Latin America. A situation such as this can make use of the term “populism” problematic, because general usage in our time usually ties the word into a right-wing connotative straightjacket. “Populism” can be used to describe progressive (left-wing) insurgencies as well. José Pinto, who is native to Portugal and also researches and writes in Spanish as well as English, in “Populism in Portugal and Spain: a Real Neighbourhood?” provides insight into these historical paradoxes. Hungary shares some historical inclinations with Poland (above). Both emerged from Soviet dominance in an air of developing freedom and multicultural diversity after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed. Then, gradually at first, right wing-forces began to tighten up, stripping structures supporting popular freedom, from the courts, mass media, and other institutions. In Chapter 5, Bernard Tamas, in “From Youth Movement to Right-Liberal Wing Authoritarianism: The Rise of Fidesz and the Decline of Hungarian Democracy” puts the renewed growth of political and social repression into a context of worldwide nationalism. Tamas, an associate professor of political science at Valdosta State University, has been a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University and a Fulbright scholar at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. His books include From Dissident to Party Politics: The Struggle for Democracy in Post-Communist Hungary (2007). Bear in mind that not everyone shares Orbán’s vision of what will make this nation great, again. On graffiti-covered walls in Budapest, Runes (traditional Hungarian script) has been found that read “Orbán is a motherfucker” (Mikanowski, 2019, 58). Also in Europe, in Chapter 6, Professor Ronan Le Coadic, of the University of Rennes, Rennes, France, in “Is There a Revival of French Nationalism?” Stating this title in the form of a question is quite appropriate because France’s nationalistic shift has built and ebbed several times during the last few decades. For a time after 2000, it came close to assuming the role of a substantial minority, only to ebb after that. In 2017, the candidate of the National Front reached the second round of the French presidential election. This was the second time this nationalist party reached the second round of the presidential election in the history of the Fifth Republic. In 2002, however, Jean-Marie Le Pen had only obtained 17.79% of the votes, while fifteen years later his daughter, Marine Le Pen, almost doubled her father's record, reaching 33.90% of the votes cast. Moreover, in the 2019 European elections, re-named Rassemblement National obtained the largest number of votes of all French political formations and can therefore boast of being "the leading party in France.” The brutality of oppressive nationalism may be expressed in personal relationships, such as child abuse. While Indonesia and Aotearoa [the Maoris’ name for New Zealand] hold very different ranks in the United Nations Human Development Programme assessments, where Indonesia is classified as a medium development country and Aotearoa New Zealand as a very high development country. In Chapter 7, “Domestic Violence Against Women in Indonesia and Aotearoa New Zealand: Making Sense of Differences and Similarities” co-authors, in Chapter 8, Mandy Morgan and Dr. Elli N. Hayati, from New Zealand and Indonesia respectively, found that despite their socio-economic differences, one in three women in each country experience physical or sexual intimate partner violence over their lifetime. In this chapter ther authors aim to deepen understandings of domestic violence through discussion of the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of theit countries to address domestic violence alongside studies of women’s attitudes to gender norms and experiences of intimate partner violence. One of the most surprising and upsetting scholarly journeys that a North American student may take involves Adolf Hitler’s comments on oppression of American Indians and Blacks as he imagined the construction of the Nazi state, a genesis of nationalism that is all but unknown in the United States of America, traced in this volume (Chapter 8) by co-editor Johansen. Beginning in Mein Kampf, during the 1920s, Hitler explicitly used the westward expansion of the United States across North America as a model and justification for Nazi conquest and anticipated colonization by Germans of what the Nazis called the “wild East” – the Slavic nations of Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Russia, most of which were under control of the Soviet Union. The Volga River (in Russia) was styled by Hitler as the Germans’ Mississippi, and covered wagons were readied for the German “manifest destiny” of imprisoning, eradicating, and replacing peoples the Nazis deemed inferior, all with direct references to events in North America during the previous century. At the same time, with no sense of contradiction, the Nazis partook of a long-standing German romanticism of Native Americans. One of Goebbels’ less propitious schemes was to confer honorary Aryan status on Native American tribes, in the hope that they would rise up against their oppressors. U.S. racial attitudes were “evidence [to the Nazis] that America was evolving in the right direction, despite its specious rhetoric about equality.” Ming Xie, originally from Beijing, in the People’s Republic of China, in Chapter 9, “News Coverage and Public Perceptions of the Social Credit System in China,” writes that The State Council of China in 2014 announced “that a nationwide social credit system would be established” in China. “Under this system, individuals, private companies, social organizations, and governmental agencies are assigned a score which will be calculated based on their trustworthiness and daily actions such as transaction history, professional conduct, obedience to law, corruption, tax evasion, and academic plagiarism.” The “nationalism” in this case is that of the state over the individual. China has 1.4 billion people; this system takes their measure for the purpose of state control. Once fully operational, control will be more subtle. People who are subject to it, through modern technology (most often smart phones) will prompt many people to self-censor. Orwell, modernized, might write: “Your smart phone is watching you.” Ming Xie holds two Ph.Ds, one in Public Administration from University of Nebraska at Omaha and another in Cultural Anthropology from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, where she also worked for more than 10 years at a national think tank in the same institution. While there she summarized news from non-Chinese sources for senior members of the Chinese Communist Party. Ming is presently an assistant professor at the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, West Texas A&M University. In Chapter 10, analyzing native peoples and nationhood, Barbara Alice Mann, Professor of Honours at the University of Toledo, in “Divide, et Impera: The Self-Genocide Game” details ways in which European-American invaders deprive the conquered of their sense of nationhood as part of a subjugation system that amounts to genocide, rubbing out their languages and cultures -- and ultimately forcing the native peoples to assimilate on their own, for survival in a culture that is foreign to them. Mann is one of Native American Studies’ most acute critics of conquests’ contradictions, and an author who retrieves Native history with a powerful sense of voice and purpose, having authored roughly a dozen books and numerous book chapters, among many other works, who has traveled around the world lecturing and publishing on many subjects. Nalanda Roy and S. Mae Pedron in Chapter 11, “Understanding the Face of Humanity: The Rohingya Genocide.” describe one of the largest forced migrations in the history of the human race, the removal of 700,000 to 800,000 Muslims from Buddhist Myanmar to Bangladesh, which itself is already one of the most crowded and impoverished nations on Earth. With about 150 million people packed into an area the size of Nebraska and Iowa (population less than a tenth that of Bangladesh, a country that is losing land steadily to rising sea levels and erosion of the Ganges river delta. The Rohingyas’ refugee camp has been squeezed onto a gigantic, eroding, muddy slope that contains nearly no vegetation. However, Bangladesh is majority Muslim, so while the Rohingya may starve, they won’t be shot to death by marauding armies. Both authors of this exquisite (and excruciating) account teach at Georgia Southern University in Savannah, Georgia, Roy as an associate professor of International Studies and Asian politics, and Pedron as a graduate student; Roy originally hails from very eastern India, close to both Myanmar and Bangladesh, so he has special insight into the context of one of the most brutal genocides of our time, or any other. This is our case describing the problems that nationalism has and will pose for the sustainability of the Earth as our little blue-and-green orb becomes more crowded over time. The old ways, in which national arguments often end in devastating wars, are obsolete, given that the Earth and all the people, plants, and other animals that it sustains are faced with the existential threat of a climate crisis that within two centuries, more or less, will flood large parts of coastal cities, and endanger many species of plants and animals. To survive, we must listen to the Earth, and observe her travails, because they are increasingly our own.

Abstract In the early 1990s, people whose job it was to study trends in health care began to notice the emergence of a strange phenomenon: ordinary people appeared to be turning en masse to what were variously termed ‘‘alternative,’’ ‘‘unconventional,’’ ‘‘New Age,’’ ‘‘complementary,’’ ‘‘complementary and alternative,’’ or ‘‘integrative’’ medical practitioners. True, some conventional physicians and their organizations likened these practices to eighteenthand nineteenth-century medical charlatanism stereotypically practiced from the backs of medicine wagons. But in truth many of these complementary and alternative medicine advocates practiced under the auspices (and blessings) of our most prestigious medical schools, such as those at Harvard and Stanford. They presented themselves with impeccable professional decorum, invoking science as the basis of their practices, reassuring their audiences that their research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and publishing their articles in prestigious mainstream medical journals.

Abstract This chapter takes as its departure point an article by Donaldson in the Harvard Business Review which advocates three core values, based on three principles, for application in the relationship between US corporations and other cultures (Donaldson 1996). Such a relationship requires awareness of context, and is predicated on acknowledgement of common humanity. In the first section of this chapter, I shall examine these notions of context and common humanity. However, such principles tend to be denied within corporations themselves, through the dynamics of personal agenda, of organization, and of hierarchy in contemporary economic and civil societies. The remainder of the chapter will consider the nature of these dynamics, suggesting that the tendency is as old as civilization, but emerges starkly and damagingly in corporations through their control over resources and people, enabled by the technologies of progress, where through cultural evolution ‘we have created a world for which we are not biologically made’ (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989: 718).