Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2021 Jan;30(1):25-36. doi: 10.1017/S0963180120000468. Epub 2020 Jun 8.
COVID-19-related controversies concerning the allocation of scarce resources, travel restrictions, and physical distancing norms each raise a foundational question: How should authority, and thus responsibility, over healthcare and public health law and policy be allocated? Each controversy raises principles that support claims by traditional wielders of authority in "federal" countries, like federal and state governments, and less traditional entities, like cities and sub-state nations. No existing principle divides "healthcare and public law and policy" into units that can be allocated in intuitively compelling ways. This leads to puzzles concerning (a) the principles for justifiably allocating "powers" in these domains and (b) whether and how they change during "emergencies." This work motivates the puzzles, explains why resolving them should be part of long-term responses to COVID-19, and outlines some initial COVID-19-related findings that shed light on justifiable authority allocation, emergencies, emergency powers, and the relationships between them.
与 COVID-19 相关的资源分配争议、旅行限制和身体距离规范都提出了一个基本问题:应如何分配医疗保健和公共卫生法和政策方面的权威,从而分配责任?每一个争议都提出了一些原则,这些原则支持传统权力行使者在“联邦”国家(如联邦和州政府)以及不太传统的实体(如城市和州以下的国家)中的主张。没有现有的原则可以将“医疗保健和公共卫生法和政策”划分为可以以直观上令人信服的方式进行分配的单位。这导致了关于(a)在这些领域合理分配“权力”的原则,以及(b)它们在“紧急情况”期间是否以及如何变化的难题。这项工作引发了这些难题,解释了为什么解决这些难题应该成为应对 COVID-19 的长期对策的一部分,并概述了一些与 COVID-19 相关的初步发现,这些发现揭示了合理的权威分配、紧急情况、紧急权力以及它们之间的关系。