Suppr超能文献

不做准备,就准备失败:英国政府在新冠疫情期间不作为的人权后果。

Fail to Prepare and you Prepare to Fail: the Human Rights Consequences of the UK Government's Inaction during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

作者信息

Frowde Rhiannon, Dove Edward S, Laurie Graeme T

机构信息

School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

Asian Bioeth Rev. 2020 Nov 2;12(4):459-480. doi: 10.1007/s41649-020-00151-1. eCollection 2020 Dec.

Abstract

As the sustained and devastating extent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic becomes apparent, a key focus of public scrutiny in the UK has centred on the novel legal and regulatory measures introduced in response to the virus. When those measures were first implemented in March 2020 by the UK Government, it was thought that human rights obligations would limit excesses of governmental action and that the public had more to fear from unwarranted intrusion into civil liberties. However, within the first year of the pandemic's devastation in the UK, a different picture has emerged: rather than through action, it is governmental that has given rise to greater human rights concerns. The UK Government has been roundly criticized for its inadequate response, including missteps in decision-making, delayed implementation and poor enforcement of lockdown measures, abandonment of testing, shortages of critical resources and inadequate test and trace methods. In this article, we analyse the UK Government's missteps and compare them with published international guidance; we also contrast the UK's decisions with those taken by several other countries (including the devolved administrations within the UK) to understand how its actions and inactions have contributed to unfavourable outcomes. Using an analytical perspective that demonstrates how human rights are both a protection from the power of the state and a requirement that governmental powers are used to protect the lives, health and wellbeing of citizens, we argue that the UK Government's failure to exercise their powers competently allowed the virus to spread without ensuring the country had the means to manage a high case load. This abject failure has led to one of the highest rates of deaths per capita worldwide. We offer several lessons that can be learnt from this unfortunate, but preventable, situation.

摘要

随着2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行持续且具有毁灭性的程度日益明显,英国公众 scrutiny 的一个关键焦点集中在为应对该病毒而出台的新的法律和监管措施上。2020年3月英国政府首次实施这些措施时,人们认为人权义务会限制政府行动的过度行为,而且公众更担心公民自由受到无端侵犯。然而,在英国大流行造成破坏的第一年里,出现了不同的情况:引发更多人权担忧的不是政府的行动,而是政府的不作为。英国政府因其应对不力而受到严厉批评,包括决策失误、封锁措施实施延迟和执行不力、放弃检测、关键资源短缺以及检测和追踪方法不足。在本文中,我们分析了英国政府的失误,并将其与已发布的国际指南进行比较;我们还将英国的决策与其他几个国家(包括英国境内的下放行政区)的决策进行对比,以了解其行动和不作为是如何导致不利结果的。我们从一个分析视角出发,展示人权既是免受国家权力侵害的保护,也是要求政府权力用于保护公民的生命、健康和福祉,我们认为英国政府未能有效行使其权力,使得病毒得以传播,而没有确保国家有能力应对大量病例。这种惨败导致了全球人均死亡率最高之一。我们提供了一些可以从这种不幸但可预防的情况中学到的教训。

相似文献

1
Fail to Prepare and you Prepare to Fail: the Human Rights Consequences of the UK Government's Inaction during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2020 Nov 2;12(4):459-480. doi: 10.1007/s41649-020-00151-1. eCollection 2020 Dec.
5
COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh: A scoping review of governance issues affecting response in public sector.
Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2023 Dec 16;7:100457. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2023.100457. eCollection 2024 Jun.
7
Covidisation of oppression: COVID-19 and human rights violations in Zimbabwe.
Soc Sci Humanit Open. 2022;6(1):100374. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100374. Epub 2022 Nov 18.
9
'We did everything we could': An account of toxic leadership.
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2021 Nov;36(6):1972-1989. doi: 10.1002/hpm.3264. Epub 2021 Jul 6.
10
Collision of Fundamental Human Rights and the Right to Health Access During the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic.
Front Public Health. 2021 Jan 8;8:570243. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.570243. eCollection 2020.

引用本文的文献

1
Consequences of the Pandemic on Mental Health of Healthcare Workers in the NHS.
Behav Sci (Basel). 2024 Dec 17;14(12):1208. doi: 10.3390/bs14121208.
2
Using self-organising maps to predict and contain natural disasters and pandemics.
Int J Intell Syst. 2022 Apr;37(4):2739-2757. doi: 10.1002/int.22440. Epub 2021 May 2.
3
Pandemic justice for and from Latin America.
Ethica. 2023 Mar;22(1):1-25. doi: 10.5007/1677-2954.2023.e97435. Epub 2023 Nov 29.
4
The Public Health Response to COVID-19 in Vietnam: Decentralization and Human Rights.
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2022 Oct 22;15(2):103-123. doi: 10.1007/s41649-022-00226-1. eCollection 2023 Apr.
7
Bidding farewell to 2020: what lessons have we learned and what can bioethics continue to teach us?
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2020 Nov 20;12(4):375-378. doi: 10.1007/s41649-020-00152-0. eCollection 2020 Dec.

本文引用的文献

1
Scotland could eliminate the coronavirus - if it weren't for England.
New Sci. 2020 Jul 4;247(3289):8. doi: 10.1016/S0262-4079(20)31153-2. Epub 2020 Jul 3.
2
Covid-19: What's going wrong with testing in the UK?
BMJ. 2020 Sep 21;370:m3678. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3678.
4
The UK's public health response to covid-19.
BMJ. 2020 May 15;369:m1932. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1932.
5
Covid-19: Deaths in care home deaths in England and Wales rise sharply.
BMJ. 2020 Apr 29;369:m1727. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1727.
6
Offline: COVID-19 and the NHS-"a national scandal".
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1022. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30727-3.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验