Shepherd Andrew, Hewson Tom, Hard Jake, Green Russell, Shaw Jennifer
Offender Health Research Network, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Royal College of General Practitioners Secure Environments Group, London, United Kingdom.
Front Sociol. 2021 Jul 14;6:649837. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.649837. eCollection 2021.
Prisons represent sites of singular healthcare need-characterized by high levels of distress and disorder. In many jurisdictions, practitioners are ethically charged with delivering healthcare that is "" to that available in the wider community. This claim has been much debated-yet the emergence of a global coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the arguments in a particularly stark manner. In the following conceptual analysis, we explore the emergent discourse of the coronavirus and consider its particular significance for prison healthcare decision making and the concept of equivalence. For example, both the coronavirus pandemic and practice of prison incarceration induce a sense of varied temporality: The discourse of prison is replete in this area-such as the concept of "hard time." Alongside this, the discourse in relation to coronavirus has highlighted two competing modes of temporal understanding: The political-where the pandemic is conceptualized as has having a discrete "beginning and end", and the scientific-where the "new normal" reflects the incorporation of the "novel" coronavirus into the wider ecology. The impact of these disparate understandings on the prison population is complex: "Locking down" prisoners-to safeguard the vulnerable against infection-is relatively simple, yet it has traumatic repercussions with respect to liberty and psychosocial health. Easing lockdown, by contrast, is a difficult endeavor and risks collision between the temporalities of prison-where "hard time" is accentuated by separation from the "real world"-the political and the scientific. Whither then the concept of equivalence in relation to a field that is definitively non-equivalent? How can practitioners and policy makers maintain a just ethical stance in relation to the allocation of resources when it comes to a politically marginalized yet manifestly vulnerable population? We argue that further debate and consideration are required in this field-and propose a framework for such discussion.
监狱是特殊医疗需求的场所,其特点是高度的痛苦和混乱。在许多司法管辖区,从业者在道德上被要求提供与更广泛社区中可获得的医疗服务“相当”的医疗服务。这一主张一直备受争议——然而,全球冠状病毒大流行的出现以一种特别鲜明的方式凸显了这些争论。在以下概念分析中,我们探讨了冠状病毒出现的相关论述,并考虑其对监狱医疗决策和等效性概念的特殊意义。例如,冠状病毒大流行和监狱监禁的做法都引发了一种不同的时间感:监狱的论述在这方面很丰富——比如“艰难时光”的概念。与此同时,与冠状病毒相关的论述突出了两种相互竞争的时间理解模式:政治模式——将大流行概念化为有一个离散的“开始和结束”,以及科学模式——“新常态”反映了“新型”冠状病毒融入更广泛的生态系统。这些不同理解对监狱人口的影响是复杂的:“封锁”囚犯以保护弱势群体免受感染相对简单,但这对自由和心理社会健康有创伤性影响。相比之下,放松封锁是一项艰巨的任务,并且存在监狱的时间性(其中“艰难时光”因与“现实世界”分离而加剧)、政治模式和科学模式之间冲突的风险。那么对于一个绝对不等同的领域,等效性概念又该何去何从呢?当涉及到一个在政治上处于边缘地位但明显脆弱的人群时,从业者和政策制定者如何在资源分配方面保持公正的道德立场呢?我们认为在这个领域需要进一步的辩论和思考,并提出了一个进行此类讨论的框架。