Ubuntu has been proposed as a useful alternative to current (Western) ethical frameworks for evaluating global bioethical issues [1-5] and contributing theoretical diversity to the clinical context. [6-8] Ubuntu, Komparic [3] and others such as Cilliers [9] contend, is an African moral system that has been influential across a wide geographical area, and over a long timespan, south of the Sahara. This philosophy has its origins in the pre-colonial era, but has risen to prominence in the philosophical literature in post-apartheid South Africa (SA). Ubuntu is principally a normative ethical system among the people of southern Africa. [10, 11] It must also be emphasised, however, that ubuntu should not necessarily be taken to be representative of all ethical thinking in Africa. [12] In addition, the question as to how widely held this theory is in practice is researchable, but outside the scope of this study. Metz, [4,13] for example, has observed that his particular philosophical construction of ubuntu is not necessarily widely believed or applied. Ubuntu nonetheless encompasses a range of salient behaviours, ways of thinking and favoured norms, which are not necessarily unique to Africa, but neither have these behaviours and ways of thinking come to it from other continents. [14-21] Recently, a flurry of writings have emerged regarding this ethical theory, which some scholars such as Matolino [22] have described as largely confusing and as containing competing interpretations of ubuntu. For this reason, it can be challenging to understand this ethical theory, or to identify specific moral rules for ethical decisionmaking that may arise from it. The goal of the present study is therefore descriptive: firstly, to contribute towards a definition of ubuntu that encompasses the common themes that appear in existing, and sometimes competing, interpretations, and secondly, to highlight specific moral rules for ethical decision-making that arise from this theory in the context of clinical care and bioethics more globally. The study is neither an attempt to reinvent ubuntu nor an attempt to rescue it from its critics. Rather, it will carefully organise existing thoughts on the nature of ubuntu in order to answer the stated research question via the methodology of a systematic review. We are not aware of any study that has directly considered the research objectives defined in this way, although some studies [23-28] have offered a narrative literature review of existing writings on ubuntu. In the next few paragraphs, we shall motivate the use of a systematic, rather than narrative, review for the descriptive aim of this study. Narrative literature reviews and systematic literature reviews are differentiated by the methodology they employ for the selection of reviewed studies. A narrative review qualitatively summarises evidence on a topic using informal or subjective methods to select studies. In a narrative review, the selection process may be arbitrary: the reasons for preferring one study to another are usually not state...

No abstract

We investigate whether, and to what extent, Nozick's entitlement theory and Rawls's theory of justice as fairness can normatively ground affirmative action policies. Our findings are that, whereas the Nozickean project offers no guidance for large-scale redress, the Rawlsian position supports affirmative action as redress, but only in its softer forms. Therefore, if one accepts the assumptions of equal liberty and fairness upon which Rawls's theory is based, one is left with two alternatives: either to reject Rawls's theory because it fails to support quota systems, or to accept Rawls's theory and reject quota systems as a legitimate form of redress. We argue for the latter option.

This open-access article is distributed under Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

Aim This study is a systematic review that aims to assess how healthcare professionals manage ethical challenges regarding information within the clinical context. Method and Materials We carried out searches in PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase, using two search strings; searches generated 665 hits. After screening, 47 articles relevant to the study aim were selected for review. Seven articles were identified through snowballing, and 18 others were included following a system update in PubMed, bringing the total number of articles reviewed to 72. We used a Q-sort technique for the analysis of identified articles. Findings This study reveals that healthcare professionals around the world generally employ (to varying degrees) four broad strategies to manage different types of challenges regarding information, which can be categorized as challenges related to confidentiality, communication, professional duty, and decision-making. The strategies employed for managing these challenges include resolution, consultation, stalling, and disclosure/concealment. Conclusion There are a variety of strategies which health professionals can adopt to address challenges regarding information management within the clinical context. This insight complements current efforts aimed at enhancing health professional-patient communication. Very few studies have researched the results of employing these various strategies. Future empirical studies are required to address this. Abbreviations CIOMS: Council of International Organization of Medical Sciences; WHO: World Health Organization; AMA: American Medical Association; WMA: World Medical Association; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; ISCO: International Standard Classification of Occupations; ILO: International Labour Office; SPSS: The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences