Why ethical frameworks fail to deliver in a pandemic: Are proposed alternatives an improvement?

Bioethics 37 (8):806-813 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the past decade, numerous ethical frameworks have been developed to support public health decision‐making in challenging areas. Before the COVID‐19 pandemic began, members of the authorship team were involved in research programmes, in which the development of ethical frameworks was planned, to guide (a) the use of new technologies for emerging infectious disease surveillance; and (b) the allocation of scarce supplies of pandemic influenza vaccine. However, as the pandemic evolved, significant practical challenges emerged that led to our questioning the value of these frameworks. We now believe that a normative instrument, such as a framework, cannot adequately or reliably provide the ethical guidance that needs to be incorporated into public health decision‐making during natural disasters or infectious disease emergencies. Recently it has been suggested that there are potentially more dynamic, flexible, and effective ways to navigate decisions involving complex considerations entailed in policies and practices during a public health emergency. In this paper, we first outline the key functions of a public health ethics framework, before describing why we believe it would not be fit for purpose during a crisis. We end by considering whether proposed alternative methods to promote ethical public health decision‐making goals have the potential to meet these objectives.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,928

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Biomedical researchers confronting the covid-19 pandemic.Srećko Gajović - 2021 - Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics 2 (1):23-28.
Ethical subjectification and search engines: ethics reconsidered.Tobias Blanke - 2005 - International Review of Information Ethics 3:34-38.
The Subject of Intellectual Disability: A Reply to Clegg, Murphy, & Almack.Murray K. Simpson - 2017 - Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 24 (4):373-376.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-07-14

Downloads
14 (#990,773)

6 months
8 (#361,341)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?