ArticlePublic health ethics
Developing an Ethical Evaluation Framework for Coercive Antimicrobial Stewardship Policies.
Article in Public health ethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coercion in public health: a scoping review of definitions.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Coercive public health policies need context-specific ethical justifications.Monash bioethics review · 2025Article
- The Capability Approach and Upstream Causes-A Discussion of Johnson's Ethical Evaluation Framework for Coercive Antimicrobial Stewardship Policies.Public health ethics · 2025Article
- A Just Transition for Antimicrobial Resistance: The Need for More Forms and a Broader Scope of Justice.Public humanities · 2025Article
- Stewardship and social justice: implications of using the precautionary principle to justify burdensome antimicrobial stewardship measures.Monash bioethics review · 2024Article
- One Health Ethics and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A Silent Call for Global Action.Veterinary sciences · 2024Review
- Is Resource Allocation that is Sensitive to Vaccination Status Coercive? Who Cares?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been declared one of the top ten global public health threats facing humanity. To address AMR, coercive antimicrobial stewardship policies are being enacted in some settings. These policies, like all in public health, require ethical justification. Here, I introduce a framework for ethically evaluating coercive antimicrobial stewardship policies on the basis of ethical justifications (and their limitations). I consider arguments from effectiveness; duty of easy rescue; tragedy of the commons; responsibility-tracking; the harm principle; paternalism; justice and development; a precautionary approach; and professional duties. I consider how these justifications might form the basis for developing a comprehensive ethical framework, and the need for this to be context-specific and aligned with the priorities, evidence and needs of the particular jurisdictions in which a policy is to be enacted. I demonstrate how the ethical justifications might be used by reference to an example policy of the EU ban on the use of certain human-critical antibiotics for livestock, before concluding with challenges for further development of the framework.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.