This commentary explores ethical implications of human extinction in health care, highlighting equivalence and further-loss views.
Is there an important ethical difference between a global catastrophe that causes human extinction and one that does not? This commentary on a case introduces 3 approaches-equivalence, further-loss, and pro-extinctionist-in responding to this question. In particular, focus is placed on equivalence and further-loss views' implications for how clinicians, health professions, and health care organizations orient themselves ethically towards managing the risk of extinction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kellis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: