Rights statement: “This article has been accepted for publication in Journal of Medical Ethics, 2023 following peer review, and the Version of Record can be accessed online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-108908 © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Accepted author manuscript, 54.7 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Review article › peer-review
| <mark>Journal publication date</mark> | 21/02/2023 |
|---|---|
| <mark>Journal</mark> | Journal of Medical Ethics |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Volume | 49 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1871-88 |
| Publication Status | Published |
| Early online date | 2/02/23 |
| <mark>Original language</mark> | English |
I am grateful for these four wide-ranging and incisive commentaries on my paper discussing the ethical issues that arise when we consider the carbon footprint of inhalers.1 As I am unable to address every point raised, instead I focus on what I take to be the common thread running through these papers. Each response has something to say regarding the scope of healthcare's responsibility to mitigate climate change. This can be explored at the intuitional or structural level, or at the individual patient and practitioner level leading to a further issue of the relationship between these perspectives.