Harvard University.
Johns Hopkins University.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2021 Oct 1;46(5):831-860. doi: 10.1215/03616878-9156005.
COVID-19 has prompted debates between bioethicists and disability activists about Crisis Standards of Care plans (CSCs), triage protocols determining the allocation of scarce lifesaving care.
We examine CSCs in 35 states and code how they approach disability, comparing states that have revised their plans over time to those that have not. We offer ethical and legal analyses evaluating to what extent changes to state policy aligned with disability rights law and ethics during the early pandemic and subsequently as stakeholder engagement grew.
While disability rights views were not well represented in CSCs that were not updated or updated early in the pandemic, states that revised their plans later in the pandemic were more aligned with advocate priorities. However, many CSCs continue to include concerning provisions, especially the reliance on long-term survival, which implicates considerations of both disability rights and racial justice.
The disability rights movement's successes in influencing state triage policy should inform future CSCs and set the stage for further work on how stakeholders influence bioethics policy debates. We offer thoughts for examining bioethics policy making reflecting the processes by which activists seek policy change and the tension policy makers face between expert delegation and mediating values conflicts.
COVID-19 引发了生物伦理学家和残疾活动家之间关于危机标准护理计划(CSC)的辩论,这些计划是确定稀缺救生护理分配的分类协议。
我们研究了 35 个州的 CSC,并对其处理残疾的方式进行了编码,比较了随着时间的推移修订计划的州和没有修订计划的州。我们提供了伦理和法律分析,评估在大流行早期以及随着利益相关者参与度的增加,州政策的变化在多大程度上符合残疾权利法和伦理。
虽然在大流行早期没有更新或更新的 CSC 中没有很好地代表残疾权利观点,但在大流行后期修订计划的州与倡导者的优先事项更为一致。然而,许多 CSC 仍然包含令人担忧的条款,特别是对长期生存的依赖,这涉及到残疾权利和种族正义的考虑。
残疾权利运动在影响州分类政策方面的成功应该为未来的 CSC 提供信息,并为进一步研究利益相关者如何影响生物伦理政策辩论奠定基础。我们提供了一些思考,以检查反映活动家寻求政策变化的过程和政策制定者在专家授权和调解价值冲突之间面临的紧张关系的生物伦理政策制定。