The author claims that there are good arguments for a public health service that do not amount to arguments for a national health service, but for something that looks far more like a transnational health service.

This innovative and engaging book argues that because our genetic information is directly linked to the genetic information of others, it is impossible to assert a ‘right to privacy’ in the same way that we can in other areas of life. This position throws up questions around access to sensitive data. It suggests that we may have to abandon certain intuitions about who may access our genetic information; and it raises concerns about discrimination against people with certain genetic characteristics. But the author asserts that regulating access to genetic information requires a more nuanced perspective that does not rely on the familiar language of rights. The book proposes new ways in which we may think about who has access to what genetic information, and on what basis they do so. Conceptually challenging, the book will prove engaging reading for scholars and students interested in the area of bioethics and medical law, as well as policy makers working with these pressing issues.

Beginning by posing the question of what it is that marks the difference between something like terrorism and something like civil society, Brassington argues that commonsense moral arguments against terrorism or political violence tend to imply that the modern democratic polis might also be morally unjustifiable. At the same time, the commonsense arguments in favour of something like a modern democratic polis could be co-opted by the politically violent as exculpatory. In exploring this prima facie problem and in the course of trying to substantiate the commonsense distinction, Brassington identifies a tension between the primary values of truth and normativity in the standard accounts of moral theory which he ultimately resolves by adopting lines of thought suggested by Martin Heidegger and concluding that the problem with mainstream moral philosophy is that, in a sense, it tries too hard.

Beginning by posing the question of what it is that marks the difference between something like terrorism and something like civil society, Brassington argues that commonsense moral arguments against terrorism or political violence tend to imply that the modern democratic polis might also be morally unjustifiable. At the same time, the commonsense arguments in favour of something like a modern democratic polis could be co-opted by the politically violent as exculpatory. In exploring this prima facie problem and in the course of trying to substantiate the commonsense distinction, Brassington identifies a tension between the primary values of truth and normativity in the standard accounts of moral theory which he ultimately resolves by adopting lines of thought suggested by Martin Heidegger and concluding that the problem with mainstream moral philosophy is that, in a sense, it tries too hard.

This book examines the often tough questions raised by infectious diseases through essays that explore a host of legal and ethical issues. The authors also offer potential solutions in order to ensure that past errors are not repeated in response to future outbreaks. The essays touch on a number of key themes, including institutional competence, the accountability and responsibility of non-state actors, the importance of pharmaceuticals, and the move towards a rights-based approach in global health. Readers gain insights into such important questions as follows: How can we help victims in other countries? What (if any) responsibility should be placed upon international organizations whose actions exacerbate infectious diseases? How can we ensure that pharmaceutical research helps all communities, even those who cannot afford to pay for the products? While broadly covering global health law, the book adopts an inter-disciplinary approach that draws on public international law, philosophy, international relations, human rights law, and healthcare economics. As such, it is a valuable resource for academic libraries, appealing to scholars and postgraduates engaged in relevant research, as well as to those engaged with global health and policy at the international level.

This book examines the often tough questions raised by infectious diseases through essays that explore a host of legal and ethical issues. The authors also offer potential solutions in order to ensure that past errors are not repeated in response to future outbreaks. The essays touch on a number of key themes, including institutional competence, the accountability and responsibility of non-state actors, the importance of pharmaceuticals, and the move towards a rights-based approach in global health. Readers gain insights into such important questions as follows: How can we help victims in other countries? What (if any) responsibility should be placed upon international organizations whose actions exacerbate infectious diseases? How can we ensure that pharmaceutical research helps all communities, even those who cannot afford to pay for the products? While broadly covering global health law, the book adopts an inter-disciplinary approach that draws on public international law, philosophy, international relations, human rights law, and healthcare economics. As such, it is a valuable resource for academic libraries, appealing to scholars and postgraduates engaged in relevant research, as well as to those engaged with global health and policy at the international level.

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. The field of biotechnology has provided us with radical revisions and reappraisals of the nature and possibilities of our biological existence. Yet beyond its immediate utility, does a life that is healthier, longer, or freer from disease make us 'better' or more moral people? Bioscience and the Good Life explores the complex relationship between modern biosciences and human flourishing, their sympathies and schisms, and the instances of their reconciliation. Here cognitive enhancement, longevity, and the spectacle of excellence in sports, are examined within the context of what constitutes a life well lived. Framing biotechnological innovation in the discourse of duty and ethics, Brassington advances an insightful and involved response to the existing debates between bioscientific optimists and pessimists, one which mediates their differences, and expands the traditional scope of their arguments.