Ethical models underpinning responses to threats to public health: A comparison of approaches to communicable disease control in europe
Bioethics 22 (9):466-476 (2008)
Increases in international travel and migratory flows have enabled infectious diseases to emerge and spread more rapidly than ever before. Hence, it is increasingly easy for local infectious diseases to become global infectious diseases (GIDs). National governments must be able to react quickly and effectively to GIDs, whether naturally occurring or intentionally instigated by bioterrorism. According to the World Health Organisation, global partnerships are necessary to gather the most up-to-date information and to mobilize resources to tackle GIDs when necessary. Communicable disease control also depends upon national public health laws and policies. The containment of an infectious disease typically involves detection, notification, quarantine and isolation of actual or suspected cases; the protection and monitoring of those not infected; and possibly even treatment. Some measures are clearly contentious and raise conflicts between individual and societal interests. In Europe national policies against infectious diseases are very heterogeneous. Some countries have a more communitarian approach to public health ethics, in which the interests of individual and society are more closely intertwined and interdependent, while others take a more liberal approach and give priority to individual freedoms in communicable disease control. This paper provides an overview of the different policies around communicable disease control that exist across a select number of countries across Europe. It then proposes ethical arguments to be considered in the making of public health laws, mostly concerning their effectiveness for public health protection.
|Keywords||Europe public health ethics public health law infectious diseases|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Information and Communication Technologies, Genes, and Peer-Production of Knowledge to Empower Citizens’ Health.Annibale Biggeri & Mariachiara Tallacchini - forthcoming - Science and Engineering Ethics:1-15.
Similar books and articles
The Dread Disease: Cancer in the Developing World.Kayhan Parsi, Dhrubajyoti Bhattacharya & Justin List - 2011 - Hastings Center Report 41 (3):13-14.
Global Health Governance and the Challenge of Chronic, Non-Communicable Disease.Roger S. Magnusson - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38 (3):490-507.
On the Analogy Between Infectious Diseases and War: How to Use It and Not to Use It.G. de Grandis - 2011 - Public Health Ethics 4 (1):70-83.
Public Health Ethics: Key Concepts and Issues in Policy and Practice.Angus Dawson (ed.) - 2011 - Cambridge University Press.
Public Health and Bioethics.Peter J. Lachmann - 1998 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23 (3):297 – 302.
Shutting Up Infected Houses: Infectious Disease Control, Past and Present.M. Verweij & A. Dawson - 2010 - Public Health Ethics 3 (1):1-3.
On Pandemics and the Duty to Care: Whose Duty? Who Cares? [REVIEW]Carly Ruderman, C. Tracy, Cécile Bensimon, Mark Bernstein, Laura Hawryluck, Randi Zlotnik Shaul & Ross Upshur - 2006 - BMC Medical Ethics 7 (1):1-6.
Should Persons Detained During Public Health Crises Receive Compensation?Søren Holm - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (2):197-205.
Common Health Policy Interests and the Shaping of Global Pharmaceutical Policies.Meri Koivusalo - 2010 - Ethics and International Affairs 24 (4):395-414.
Communitarianism and the Ethics of Communicable Disease: Some Preliminary Thoughts.Cara M. Cheyette - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (4):678-689.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #156,934 of 2,153,858 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #398,274 of 2,153,858 )
How can I increase my downloads?