The field of global health is at a pivotal moment of transformation. Decoloniality has emerged as a critical framework to assess and transform the pathologies that mark the field. These pathologies include the inequitable sharing of resources, the power hierarchies that entrench decision-making in institutions largely based in North America and Europe and the general predisposition towards paternalistic and exploitative interactions and exchange between North and South. The energy being generated around this transformative moment is widening circles of participation in the discourse on what transformation should look like in the field. The importance of decoloniality cannot be overstated in driving the transformative agenda. At the same time, the popularity of decoloniality as a critical framework may risk omissions in our understanding of the origins of injustice and the pathways to a new global health. To complement the work being done to decolonise global health, I illustrate how the \'human condition\' intersects with the transformative agenda. By human condition, I mean the universal features of humanity that lead to oppression and those that lead to cooperation, unity and a shared humanity.

The imperative to decolonise health disciplines underscores the need for a critical examination of the coloniality of nursing knowledge development. Decolonising nursing requires epistemic resistance aimed at exposing and dismantling epistemological hierarchies that marginalise indigenous knowledges. This paper introduces the \'Pluriverse of Nursologies\' as paradigm to guide decolonial theorising in nursing. Through a four-part exploration, I first elucidate the coloniality embedded in mainstream nursing knowledge. Next, I offer a decolonial critique of Fawcett\'s nursing metaparadigm as an exemplar of pyramidal epistemology. I then discuss pluriversality as an approach to decolonising nursing knowledge. Finally, I introduce the Pluriverse of Nursologies (PoN) as a meta-theoretical paradigm for theory and knowledge development that decentres and dismantles the pyramidal epistemology of colonial/modern nursing, and relinks diverse nursologies from marginalised communities to the centre of intellectual nursing discourse, thereby revitalising the theoretical landscape of the discipline.

In 1834, Dr. Henry Orton immigrated to Guelph, seeking to escape the English class system and attracted by the prospect of land ownership. The analysis of his letters and memoirs offers a rich trove of information about the strategies he pursued to survive in his new home. Joining the scholarly literature based on the analysis of medical casebooks, diaries, and letters, this study seeks to increase understanding of how colonial practitioners made a living. In common with other doctors, Orton describes gruelling work providing poorly paid medical services, competition by alternative practitioners, and seeking financial remuneration through land transactions. Relying on funds from family members in England, he details his partnership in a medical practice, commercial investments, and using his connections as a property owner to obtain paid political and civic offices. In the process, assisted by the emerging liberalism of his adopted country, Henry Orton reveals his contribution to Guelph\'s development as a middle-class community.
Résumé. En 1834, cherchant à échapper au système anglais des classes sociales et attiré par la perspective de posséder des terres, le Dr Henry Orton immigrait à Guelph. L’analyse de ses lettres et de ses mémoires nous offre un trésor sur les stratégies qu’il a employées pour survivre dans son nouvel environnement. Dans l’esprit des travaux savants qui analysent les recueils de cas médicaux, les journaux intimes et les lettres, cette étude cherche à étoffer nos connaissances sur la manière dont les médecins gagnaient leur vie dans les colonies. Comme d’autres de ses confrères, Orton décrit le travail épuisant et les revenus médiocres que représentent les soins médicaux, la concurrence entre praticiens et ses efforts pour augmenter ses ressources financières au moyen de transactions foncières. Dépendant de l’argent que sa famille lui fait parvenir d’Angleterre, il expose en détail son partenariat avec un cabinet de médecins, ses investissements commerciaux et le recours à ses relations avec d’autres propriétaires terriens pour obtenir des charges politiques et civiles rémunérées. Ce faisant, porté par le libéralisme émergent de son pays d’adoption, Henry Orton nous révèle sa contribution au développement de la classe moyenne dans la collectivité de Guelph.

The forced removal and relocation of the King\'s Road Reserve in Sydney, Nova Scotia, between 1915 and 1926 is a key example of how settlers used public health discourses to dispossess Indigenous lands in Canada. At the turn of the twentieth century, non-Indigenous Sydney residents lobbied the government to remove the Mi\'kmaw reserve, which was located in an expanding downtown core. They justified this removal by arguing that Mi\'kmaq were public health threats to themselves and their white neighbours. Ottawa responded to this case, and other cases across Canada, by implementing section 49A of the Indian Act in 1911. This amendment allowed settlers to request an Exchequer Court trial to rule on urban reserve relocations if land surrenders could not be obtained. The King\'s Road Reserve relocation has yet to be examined with a medical lens. Doing so illuminates the centrality of medical expert testimony during this particular episode of twentieth-century colonialism.
Résumé. Le déplacement forcé et la relocalisation de la réserve de King’s Road, à Sydney, en Nouvelle-Écosse, entre 1915 et 1926, sont un exemple clé de la manière dont les colons ont utilisé le discours sur la santé publique pour déposséder les autochtones de leurs terres au Canada. Au tournant du XXe siècle, les habitants non autochtones de Sydney ont fait des démarches auprès du gouvernement afin qu’il déplace la réserve micmaque, qui occupait en partie le centre-ville alors en expansion. Leur argument était que les Micmacs constituaient un danger pour la santé publique, à la fois pour le groupe lui-même et pour son voisinage blanc. Ottawa a réagi à ce cas – et à d’autres dans tout le Canada – par l’entrée en vigueur de l’article 49A de la Loi sur les Indiens, en 1911. Cette modification permettait aux colons de demander à la Cour de l’Échiquier de statuer sur le déplacement d’une réserve urbaine s’il était impossible d’obtenir une cession des terres. La relocalisation de la réserve de King’s Road n’avait pas encore été examinée du point de vue médical. En le faisant ici, je mets en lumière le rôle central des témoignages d’experts en médecine au cours de cet épisode particulier du colonialisme au XXe siècle.

Between 1867 and 1933, the understanding of leprosy within the colonial medical establishment in Bombay city was fractured on two issues: whether leprosy was contagious and whether individuals with leprosy should be segregated. This article explores how legislation paved the way for resolving these issues in Bombay between 1867 and 1933. Furthermore, the article seeks to problematize the notion of \"diseased bodies\" or \"lepers\" through legislation to protect healthy individuals from possible degeneration. Leprosy in Bombay reflected the anxieties of the city\'s business elite who were averse to accommodating patients from other parts of British India. In addition, the article studies leprosy and \"lepers\" by analyzing archival documents and public health reports within the context of Bombay city.
Entre 1867 et 1933, la lèpre au sein de l\'institution médicale coloniale de la ville de Bombay a été débattue autour de deux questions : était-elle contagieuse et les personnes atteintes devaient-elles faire l\'objet d\'une ségrégation? Cet article explore la manière dont la législation a ouvert la voie à la résolution de ces questions à Bombay pour la période étudiée. En outre, l\'article cherche à problématiser la notion de « corps malades » ou de « lépreux » au sein d\'une législation qui visait à protéger les individus sains d\'une éventuelle dégénérescence. La lèpre à Bombay reflétait les inquiétudes de l’élite économique de la ville, peu encline à accueillir des patients originaires d\'autres régions de l\'Inde britannique. L\'article se penche également sur la lèpre et les « lépreux » en analysant des documents d\'archives et des rapports de santé publique portant sur la ville de Bombay.

In response to continuing legacies of colonialism, there is increasing recognition of the need to decolonise various fields of research and practice, including within work on violence against women and girls (VAWG). An emerging body of literature critiques how VAWG is framed, how prevention and response interventions may be imposed on communities as part of White Saviourism, and the existence of hierarchical approaches to data collection, analysis and interpretation. This scoping review is the first known attempt to describe global published and grey literature on colonialism and decolonisation within VAWG research and programming. We conducted an extensive search across databases and search engines including research studies, reports, commentaries and blogs, and identified 55 sources that focused on VAWG and related to the legacy of colonialism and/or decolonial approaches within the field. Included literature discussed the role of colonialism in shaping VAWG, referenced decolonial approaches to respond to VAWG and identified five key recommendations for VAWG research and practice: 1. Consider the context and power hierarchies within which VAWG occurs; 2. Incorporate community resources and perspectives into efforts to end VAWG; 3. Use methods and approaches to researching VAWG that centre perspectives and lived experience of communities; 4. Shift VAWG funding to local actors and ensure VAWG funding streams are more responsive to local needs and realities; and 5. Ensure local, contextually-relevant framings of feminisms inform decolonising of VAWG. We conclude that shifting towards a bottom-up approach to decolonising VAWG research and programming is essential to prevent decolonisation from being reduced to a buzzword. While literature explored the use of specific methods to decolonise research on VAWG, researchers need broader strategies to embed a decolonial perspective throughout the research process, transcending mere methodological adaptations. There is a need for VAWG research and programming to scrutinise structural inequities, particularly acknowledging how colonial practices entrenched within wider societal power structures impact the field of VAWG.

Discussions around global equity and justice in science typically emphasize the lack of diversity in the editorial boards of scientific journals, inequities in authorship, \"parachute research,\" dominance of the English language, or scientific awards garnered predominantly by Global North scientists. These inequities are pervasive and must be redressed. But there is a bigger problem. The legacy of colonialism in scientific research includes an intellectual property system that favors Global North countries and the big corporations they support. This unfairness shows up in who gets access to the fruits of science and raises the question of who science is designed to serve or save.

This editorial critiques the existing literature on decolonizing global health, using the current assault on health in Gaza as a case in point. It argues that the failure to address the ongoing violence and blatant targeting of health facilities, personnel and innocent civilians demonstrates most clearly the limitations of an approach that is strong on rhetoric and weak on mounting a forthright challenge to the entire system supporting and perpetuating settler colonialism. We propose a more radical rethinking of the position of global health institutions within the current neoliberal system and of the systems of knowledge production that continue to underpin the existing colonial approach to the health of victims of settler colonialism.

This article offers a new interpretation of anti-colonial constitutional thought of the mid-twentieth century. Historians and political theorists have long viewed the circulation of democratic constitutions at the moment of decolonization in terms of the diffusion of electoral, parliamentary government. This article argues against such a \"parliamentary\" reading of anti-colonial democracy by examining the political thought of Indian Marxist thinker M. N. Roy (1887-1954). I reconstruct Roy\'s writings on anti-parliamentary forms of popular sovereignty through the 1940s. Further, I situate Roy\'s democratic theory as a response to understandings of political representation within the Indian national movement.

This essay explores hitherto unnoticed conceptual transactions between reflections on scientific method and a rethinking of political-economic categories in early-nineteenth century Britain through the writings of William Whewell and Richard Jones. Closely examining personal correspondences between Whewell and Jones, their works, contemporary debates on political economy and the problem of scientific method, Jones\'s pedagogic practices, Karl Marx\'s engagements with Jones, and his receptions as a teacher of political economy in colonial governance and imperial education, I argue that Jones drew upon Whewell\'s philosophical considerations on the relation between \"fact\" and \"idea,\" to reconstitute the epistemological orientation of political economy.