Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) (Truvada) is a medication which if taken correctly is almost entirely effective in preventing HIV infection. In regions and countries where it has been widely taken up, HIV seroconversion rates have significantly decreased. Alongside testing and treatment, it offers the very real prospect of ending HIV infections. However, in England, commissioning it has (and still is) a controversial process, where NHS England has repeatedly raised supposed ‘uncertainties’, first legal and then scientific. The same has not happened in Scotland, where PrEP was commissioned to anyone who needed it in April 2017. This article presents a close reading of the IMPACT trial protocol, which we conclude cannot answer the questions it sets out to answer. We then suggest that the uncertainties the trial claims to address are in fact a tool of power which is deployed to strategically ration healthcare; introduce uncertainty about commissioning PrEP; and shift the boundary between individual responsibilities and state responsibilities for public health and HIV prevention. We conclude that all the above constitute an unethical use of clinical trial rhetoric, systematically discriminate against minority and vulnerable groups, and ration healthcare for those who most need it. As such, we call on all academics, clinicians and activists to resist further unethical misuses of clinical trial rhetoric.

Ethical care is beginning to be recognised as care that accounts for the views of those at the receiving end of care. However, in the context of palliative and supportive district nursing care, the patients’ and their carers’ views are seldom heard. This qualitative research study explores these views. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 26 patients with palliative and supportive care needs receiving district nursing care, and 13 of their carers. Participants were recruited via community nurses and hospices between September 2010 and October 2011. Post-structural discourse analysis is used to examine how discourses operate on a moral level. One discourse, ‘busyness’, is argued to preclude a moral form of nursing care. The discourse of friendship is presented to contrast this. Discussion explores Gallagher’s ‘slow ethics’ and challenges the currently accepted ways of measuring to improve quality of care concluding that quality cannot be measured.

The objective of this research was to explore how gay men use drugs in their sex lives, colloquially called “chemsex”. This paper reports on a sub‐theme within the research about support, care and peer support. Longitudinal interviews were conducted with 20 gay and bi men between April 2017 and July 2019. Participants were recruited via geolocated dating apps (n = 17) and snowball sampling (n = 3). The main findings of this research are that medicalised forms of support for gay and bi men engaging in chemsex are often tardy in their responses to need, and whilst helpful for cessation of drug use, fail to address the holistic needs of the participants. A wide variety of peer support was practiced amongst the sample which often echoed previous forms of peer support practiced in the LGBT+ community. It was offered by both people who engaged in chemsex and those who did not and was highly beneficial to people who experienced problems with chemsex. However, peer support was also limited by factors such as shame and the instability of those offering support. In conclusion, we suggest that medicalised forms of chemsex support could benefit from more rigorous and rapid forms of assessment for problematic chemsex, and also provide infrastructure and training to peer support initiatives. We also suggest that medical services could learn from patients and their peers about what support needs remain unaddressed by professional services, and engage in collaborative approaches to practice development.

This letter explores the societal aspects and healthcare implications that underlie thinking about mpox (formerly known was monkeypox), in the 2022 outbreak, as a sexually transmitted infection (STI). The authors examine what underlies this question, exploring what is an STI, what is sex, and what is the role of stigma in sexual health promotion. The authors argue that, in this specific outbreak, mpox is an STI among men who have sex with men (MSM). The authors highlight the need of critically thinking about how to communicate effectively, the role of homophobia and other inequalities, and the importance of the social sciences.

In recent years, dating apps have become important allies in public health. In this paper, we explore the implications of partnering with dating apps for health promotion. We consider the opportunities and challenges inherent in these collaborations, paying special attention to privacy, trust, and user care in a digital environment.Despite their potential as targeted health promotion tools, dating apps raise significant ethical concerns, including the commodification of user data and privacy breaches, which highlight the complexities of blending healthcare initiatives with for-profit digital platforms. Furthermore, the paper delves into issues of discrimination, harassment and unequal access within these apps, factors which can undermine public health efforts.We develop a nuanced framework, emphasising the development of transparent data policies, the decoupling of content moderation from health initiatives and a commitment to combat discrimination. We underscore the importance of embedding app-based health initiatives within broader care pathways, ensuring comprehensive support beyond the digital domain. This essay offers vital insights for public health practitioners, app developers and policymakers navigating the intersection of digital innovation and healthcare.

Technology and its interfaces with nursing care, patients and carers, and the home are many and varied. To date, healthcare services research has generally focussed on pragmatic issues such access to and the optimization of technology, while philosophical inquiry has tended to focus on the ethics of how technology makes the home more hospital like. However, the ethical implications of the ways in which technology shapes the subjectivities of patients and carers have not been explored. In order to explore this, poststructural theory, in particular the work of Butler, Foucault, and Deleuze, is used to theorize the relationship between subjectivity and materiality as ethically mandated on producing rather than precluding the development of subjectivities in novel ways. This theoretical understanding is then utilized through a process of ‘plugged in’ as described by Jackson and Massie that aims to link empirical data, research, and philosophical inquiry. Through this process, it is suggested that power, which the empirical data demonstrate, is frequently exercised through medical discourses and restricts patients' and carers' ability to shape the material environment of the home as a place to live and be cared for in palliative stages of illness. Alternative discourses are suggested both from the empirical data as well as other research, which may offer patients and carers the possibility of reclaiming power over the home and their subjectivities. Finally, the dichotomy between the home and hospital, mediated via technology, is posited as being problematic. It is argued the dichotomy is false and should be moved away from in order to allow an ethical embrace of technology in palliative care.