The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many professions with short-, medium-, and long-term consequences. Hence, this study examined the mediating role of sense of coherence (SOC) and resilience in the relation to COVID-19 stress and teachers’ well-being (TWB). It recruited 836 teachers from Ethiopia’s higher-education institutions, of which 630 (75.4%) were men and 206 (24.6%) were women, with a mean age of 32.81 years and a standard deviation of 6.42. Findings showed that COVID-19 stress negatively predicted SOC, resilience, and TWB and that SOC and resilience positively predicted TWB. It was concluded that SOC and resilience, both together and separately, mediated the relation between COVID-19 stress and TWB. These results were discussed alongside relevant literature, and the study is found to be valuable for practitioners and researchers who seek to improve well-being using SOC and resilience as resources across teaching professions.

John Dewey relates ethics in general with the mode of inquiry. Against the mainstream ethics and moral theories, Dewey reconstructed morality in light of empirical science, providing the necessary steps of pragmatic ethical investigations. In this study, I have revisited Dewey’s ethical inquiry and recent developments of the methods of pragmatist bioethics. Using this approach in ethics, I have examined the development of reproductive technologies and genetics, precisely the moral dilemma of gestational surrogacy at the level of a public issue that needs social policy. In the final part, I have suggested the significance of Dewey’s emphasis on education, deliberative democracy, and institutions and agents’ role as the basis to solve bioethical issues arising in different societal contexts.

No abstract

This article approaches the ethical dilemma of healthcare allocation and rationing from the perspective of pragmatist ethics, mainly following John Dewey’s ethics. The moral dilemma of healthcare allocation arises whenever we allocate limited resources, and rationing is a necessary option for distributing available resources. In a broader sense, the moral problems of healthcare allocation also encompass the issue of access to primary healthcare, especially for low-income sections of communities. In this sense, allocation always entails rationing – denying service to someone for the benefit of others. Such aspects of allocation and rationing and the relational aspect of disease and health make the problem morally controversial, which makes it difficult to agree on a principle or principles of allocation and rationing applicable across different contexts. Hence, this paper argues that moral challenges of healthcare rationing ought not to be addressed through the appeal to principles, but rather through deliberation that embraces a more pragmatic and democratic approach to negotiating health resource allocation and rationing. However, this does not mean that moral principles and values are insignificant in healthcare allocation.