Public Health Ethics: Global Cases, Practice, and Context

Ortmann, Leonard; Barrett, Drue H.; Saénz, Carla; Bernheim, R; Dawson, Angus; Valentine, Jo A.; Reis, Andreas

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23847-0_1

Cited by 24 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conflicting values are commonplace in the context of managerial decision-making (e.g., Levinthal and Marengo, 2020) and in public health, especially in relation to the management of infectious diseases (Ortmann et al, 2016). Compulsory vaccination represents one emblematic example, in which individual freedom is restricted to favor the public good, by way of boosting heard immunity towards specific pathogens (Dawson et al, 2007).…”

Section: Conflicting Policy Viewpoints: Different Priorities To Different Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?

Angeli

Camporesi

Fabbro

2021

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the world was facing a rapidly progressing COVID-19 second wave, a policy paradox emerged. On the one side, much more was known by Autumn 2020 about the mechanisms underpinning the spread and lethality of Sars-CoV-2. On the other side, how such knowledge should be translated by policymakers into containment measures appeared to be much more controversial and debated than during the first wave in Spring. Value-laden, conflicting views in the scientific community emerged about both problem definition and subsequent solutions surrounding the epidemiological emergency, which underlined that the COVID-19 global crisis had evolved towards a full-fledged policy “wicked problem”. With the aim to make sense of the seemingly paradoxical scientific disagreement around COVID-19 public health policies, we offer an ethical analysis of the scientific views encapsulated in the Great Barrington Declaration and of the John Snow Memorandum, two scientific petitions that appeared in October 2020. We show that how evidence is interpreted and translated into polar opposite advice with respect to COVID-19 containment policies depends on a different ethical compass that leads to different prioritization decisions of ethical values and societal goals. We then highlight the need for a situated approach to public health policy, which recognizes that policies are necessarily value-laden, and need to be sensitive to context-specific and historic socio-cultural and socio-economic nuances.

show abstract

Section: Conflicting Policy Viewpoints: Different Priorities To Different Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?

Angeli

Camporesi

Fabbro

2021

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…16 Public health ethics also necessitate that the usefulness of these measures is supported by evidence-based scientific data. [18][19][20] In order to build public confidence in MRID, it is important to increase transparency and instil trust that personal data are being handled with great care in terms of confidentiality and are used only for the designated purposes. If MRID proves necessary, with due respect to patient privacy and transmission route, the patient should be thoroughly informed about the need for and the method of disclosure, and straying from this approach may result in reduced confidence in MRID.…”

Section: Mandatory Reporting Of Infectious Diseases and Ethical Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting privacy in mandatory reporting of infectious diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives from a developing country

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mandatory reporting of infectious diseases (MRID) is an essential practice to prevent disease outbreaks. Disease notification is a mandatory procedure for most infectious diseases, even during non-pandemic periods in healthcare. The main rationale behind MRID is the protection of public health. The information and data provided by infectious disease reports are used for many purposes, such as preventing the spread and potential negative impact of infectious diseases, assessing the national and global situation regarding reported diseases, conducting scientific research and planning health policy. In this context, the relevant information benefits public health, health systems and scientific work. Additionally, the follow up and treatment of individuals with infectious diseases is a necessity in certain cases to protect those who cohabit with them. However, these benefits cannot be accepted as unrestricted justifications for MRID, since it is evident that reporting should be conducted within ethical and legal boundaries. MRID should only be devised and implemented with due regard to balancing potential benefits between all individuals, as well as between the individual and the rest of society. Disease notification systems that are not designed with a balancing and harm-reductionist approach may lead to stigmatisation and discrimination. This study aims to investigate the legal framework and ethical issues regarding the reporting of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in Turkey—which is a primary example of a developing country.

show abstract

“…Some scholars believe that in this conflict public health should prevail. This would be the outcome of the solidarity proclaimed by Dawson ( Dawson and Jennings, 2012 ; Ortmann et al , 2016 ; Wilson and Dawson, 2010 ) even if the author states that all values are equivalent ( Grill and Dawson, 2017 ). Some other authors have a presumption in favour of liberties ( Childress and Bernheim, 2013 ) and consequently in favour of individual rights.…”

Section: Public Health Versus Individual Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quarantines: Between Precaution and Necessity. A Look at COVID-19

Raposo

2021

Public Health Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The events surrounding COVID-19, combined with the mandatory quarantines widely imposed in Asia and Europe since the virus outbreak, have reignited discussion of the balance between individual rights and liberties and public health during epidemics and pandemics. This article analyses this issue from the perspectives of precaution and necessity. There is a difficult relationship between these two seemingly opposite principles, both of which are frequently invoked in this domain. Although the precautionary principle (PP) encourages the use of quarantines, including mandatory quarantines, and associated restrictive measures, the principle of necessity (PN) puts a break on such measures. The COVID-19 pandemic reveals once again the different interrelations between these two principles. However, the alleged conflict between the PN and the PP is based on a superficial analysis. The relation between these two principles is far more complex, as this article will demonstrate.

show abstract

Public Health Ethics: Global Cases, Practice, and Context

Cited by 24 publications

References 29 publications

The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?

The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?

Protecting privacy in mandatory reporting of infectious diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives from a developing country

Quarantines: Between Precaution and Necessity. A Look at COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About