top of page
Search

Millenia-old activities are making their return in health and wellness. As modern healthcare continues to evolve, interest is growing to integrate traditional, cultural, and Indigenous medical practices and dietary systems into the mainstream. This intersection of traditional and contemporary medicines and habits presents potential opportunities. However, we must be careful not to get too ahead of ourselves and carefully consider the ethical issues surrounding this intersection.


Indigenous communities, no matter their location, have consistently relied on traditional plant-based remedies and food sources that have roots deep within their beliefs [1]. These traditional systems are often holistic and focus on maintaining balance and harmony between the individual, community, and natural environment, for example traditional Chinese medicine. Similarly, the food practices of these communities emphasize their relationship with the land they inhabit— utilizing local, seasonal, and minimally processed ingredients [2]. 


In recent decades, there has been an increased scientific interest in exploring the health benefits of traditional herbal medicines and Indigenous foods, because they are natural and provide more healthy alternatives to modern drugs [3]. This interest is what has mainly fueled the desire to integrate these approaches into contemporary practices and guidelines. However, the appropriation and commercialization of this knowledge without the consent and participation of the communities it comes from raises significant ethical concerns [4].  


One key dilemma is the issue surrounding intellectual property rights and fair distribution of the material benefits derived from traditional medicine and food systems. Indigenous communities possess large repositories of ecological knowledge and applications, which could be of great value to pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, and food industries. But these communities have historically been exploited, with their resources being removed without proper recognition, compensation, or even partnerships [5]. This practice of “biopiracy”, or unauthorized use of biological resources and traditional knowledge, has worsened the trust between Indigenous populations and corporations and in turn marginalized Indigenous populations, who witness this exploitation with nothing in return. 


In addition, the attempted integration of these medicines and foods into clinical care and health initiatives has to be approached with cultural sensitivity and respect for traditional beliefs and practices. Insensitive integration can result in the degradation of traditional knowledge, the disruption of community well-being, and further marginalization [6]. Further, ignorant use of these traditional herbal remedies in a clinical setting can pose a danger: a lack of understanding  their cultural importance or potential side effects with conventional medicine undermines the efficacy and safety of the treatment.


By navigating the ethical issues that stem from integrating traditional medicine and foods with modern efforts, healthcare systems can be more inclusive and culturally responsive to health and wellness. One successful example of this approach is the development of the Traditional Medicine Program at the Waiwai Health Center in New Zealand. This program was a partnership of the local Māori community and the regional health authority, which allowed for the use of traditional Māori healing practices and native medicinal plants alongside conventional medical treatments [7]. 


With an increasingly globalized world, it becomes crucial to bridge the gap between traditional and modern medicine. By working through the ethical considerations surrounding this combination of Indigenous medicine and foods with current approaches, healthcare systems can become more holistic and equitable in their work.


Edited By: Anna Chen

References 


[1] Shankar, D., Nanda, A., & Bhandari, K. K. (2020). The need for integration of traditional and modern medicine. Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicine, 11(1), 1-3.

[2] Kuhnlein, H. V., & Receveur, O. (1996). Dietary change and traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Annual review of nutrition, 16(1), 417-442.

[3] Bodeker, G., & Burford, G. (2007). Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Policy and Public Health Perspectives. London, UK: Imperial College Press.

[4] Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405-437.

[5] Reardon, J., & Cycon, D. (2019). Eradicating Biopiracy. Environmental Law, 49(4), 1-55.

[6] Lavallee, L. F., & Poole, J. M. (2010). Beyond recovery: Colonization, health and healing for Indigenous people in Canada. Qualitative health research, 20(5), 695-707.

[7] Durie, M. (1999). Mental health and Māori development. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 33(1), 5-12.


The connection between food and mental health may not always seem apparent, but it is significant– particularly within incarcerated populations. Individuals in prison often face elevated rates of mental and behavioral health issues [1]. Research reveals a strong correlation between diet and mental health, showing that proper nutrition supports both physical and mental well-being. Balanced meals with proteins, protein, carbohydrates, and fats help produce neurotransmitters that assist in regulating mood and emotions. Without the necessary nutrients found in a healthy meal, one can be more prone to conditions such as “depression, anxiety, irritability, and cognitive impairment” [2].


This issue is especially relevant in prisons, where food quality is often poor, unhealthy, and even degrading for inmates. Junk food and spoilage are common, with three out of four formerly incarcerated individuals reporting rotten food on their trays [3].  For a population already experiencing poor mental health, these substandard food options may exacerbate existing issues.


It is important to note that about 95% of incarcerated people are released, so their mental health is not just a personal concern but rather a community concern [3]. Providing inmates with nutritious and proper meals aligns with an ethical obligation to treat all individuals with respect and dignity, and will improve outcomes for incarcerated people in the long run. Improving the nutritional quality of prison food could have far-reaching benefits, supporting inmates’ mental health both during and after incarceration. This shift would promote not only individual well-being but also a healthier, more resilient community as formerly incarcerated individuals reintegrate into society. 


Reviewed By: Radhika Subramani


References: 

[1] Mommaerts, K., Lopez, N. V., Camplain, C., Keene, C., Hale,  A. M., & Camplain, R. (2023). Nutrition availability for those incarcerated in jail: Implications for mental health. International journal of prisoner health, 19(3), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-02-2022-0009

[2] Mass General Brigham McLean. “Diet and Mental Health: How Nutrition Shapes Your Well-Being.” Putting People First in Mental Health , 24 May 2024, www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/nutrition

[3] Soble, L., Stroud, K., & Weinstein, M. (2020). Eating Behind Bars: Ending the Hidden Punishment of Food in Prison. Impact Justice. impactjustice.org/impact/food-in-prison/#report


2 views0 comments



For those with food allergies, every meal is a potential life-or-death situation. Yet throughout history, allergies were poorly understood and rarely treated. Reports from ancient China, Rome, Egypt, and Greece confirm that antibody-antigen interactions have existed for millenia, though the term “allergy” was only coined in 1906, by Clemens von Pirquet [1]. Despite their prevalence, scientists only came to understand the mechanisms behind allergies in the middle of the 20th century; in 1967, the crucial antibody immunoglobulin was identified. The modern standard of care, the EpiPen epinephrine auto-injector, was patented in 1977 and FDA approved in 1987 [1, 2]. Since then, the Epipen has revolutionized the treatment of severe anaphylactic shock and has saved countless lives. Nonetheless, epinephrine delivered via injection comes with challenges regarding needle use, administration complexity, and accessibility. 


Neffy, a new nasal epinephrine delivery system, represents a promising advancement in allergy medicine administration by offering a needle-free option that could significantly impact emergency care for anaphylactic patients. By improving the public’s ability to administer epinephrine quickly and effectively, Neffy could positively affect anaphylaxis response times and survival rates. However, these benefits must be weighed against considerations of safety and equitable access.


With the current standard of care being injectable forms of epinephrine, people with allergies may be intimidated about using their delivery systems. In particular, many children face challenges with epinephrine auto-injectors due to needle phobias. Neffy provides a less threatening alternative: a nasal spray which might improve the willingness of patients and caregivers to administer life-saving treatment promptly. According to a survey of patients and caregivers, “72% would prefer using an epinephrine nasal spray instead of an auto-injector” [3]. Willingness to administer epinephrine has substantial effects on survival rates, as “delayed use of epinephrine during an anaphylactic reaction has been associated with deaths” [4]. Additionally, the nasal spray is both user-friendly and FDA approved, showing “greater or similar” efficacy to an auto-injector [3]. Finally, the cost provides an added benefit for those without insurance coverage—a package of 2 auto-injectors costs approximately $600-750, whereas 2 of the Neffy nasal sprays cost $498 [3,5]. Overall, a nasal delivery system may be a very attractive option to many people with severe allergies.


Despite these benefits, Neffy’s use raises ethical concerns, particularly regarding safety and efficacy. Since Neffy is a newer technology, it is crucial to evaluate whether it delivers epinephrine as effectively as injectables; the FDA approved it based on four studies (on healthy adults without anaphylaxis), but new evidence may come out to the contrary. Additional clinical trials should be done verifying Neffy’s effectiveness in patients actually experiencing anaphylactic shock, rather than just measuring epinephrine absorption. One of the biggest questions raised is whether one should prefer Neffy to a traditional auto-injector in an emergency. Many patients have used EpiPens for years and are comfortable with using them. For those who still carry an EpiPen but have decided to purchase Neffy, the dilemma of deciding between a trusted medication and Neffy may cause hesitation in a moment of distress. Even if patients carry both, they and their caregivers should have a clear plan in mind of which delivery system they plan to default to. One final concern lies with access equity: though the cost of Neffy and other innovative nasal therapies appear to be manageable, asymmetric distribution in the next few years might leave certain areas without access. Nevertheless, this is the case with many innovative treatments; with time, Neffy and other alternative nasal epinephrine delivery systems will hopefully become widely available. 


With its nasal spray design, Neffy could increase accessibility and lower rates of medical errors by reducing the complexity of epinephrine administration. However, ensuring its efficacy remains crucial, as does conducting rigorous clinical trials to confirm its reliability. Future research and policy initiatives will play key roles in Neffy’s adoption. Should these concerns be addressed, Neffy has the potential to become a staple in life-saving allergy care, giving peace of mind to millions who worry about allergies daily.


Reviewed by Abby Winslow

Graphic by Haynes Lewis


References

13 views0 comments

DMEJ

   Duke Medical Ethics Journal   

bottom of page