Department of Nursing, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Department of Public, Constitutional and International Law, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
Int Nurs Rev. 2021 Sep;68(3):270-278. doi: 10.1111/inr.12703.
In this paper, we critically discuss the ethics of nurses' choice to strike during the COVID-19 pandemic, considering legal and ethical arguments, overlaying the Ubuntu philosophy, an African ethic.
The recent unprecedented coronavirus disease pandemic and the increased reports on the absence of personal protective equipment in South Africa places many health workers' lives at risk. Nurses spend most of their time with patients, which exposes them to fatal risks as they work in unsafe environments.
Exploratory literature review was conducted using Pubmed, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Science Direct) and law cases repository.
Nurses thus may be justified in striking to protect their safety. State healthcare entities are obliged to ensure safety and protect the health of professionals during the pandemic. According to their Code of Practice and Pledge of Service, they are ethically obliged to put patients first, and as a result, they are legally barred from engaging in strike action.
We conclude that there may be constitutional human rights arguments to support strike action. We also find that ethical principles alone do not provide clear direction to guide nurses in making justified and ethical decisions regarding service provision in an environment threatening to compromise their safety.
本文批判性地讨论了护士在 COVID-19 大流行期间选择罢工的伦理问题,考虑了法律和伦理论点,并叠加了非洲伦理观“Ubuntu 哲学”。
最近发生的前所未有的冠状病毒病大流行以及南非缺乏个人防护设备的报道越来越多,使许多卫生工作者的生命处于危险之中。护士大部分时间都与患者在一起,由于他们在不安全的环境中工作,因此他们面临着致命的风险。
使用 Pubmed、CINAHL、Google Scholar 和 Science Direct 以及法律案例库进行探索性文献综述。
因此,护士为了保护自己的安全而罢工可能是合理的。国家医疗保健实体有义务在大流行期间确保安全并保护专业人员的健康。根据其《业务守则》和《服务誓言》,他们在道德上有义务将患者放在首位,因此他们被法律禁止采取罢工行动。
我们的结论是,可能存在支持罢工行动的宪法人权论点。我们还发现,仅伦理原则并不能为指导护士在环境威胁到他们的安全的情况下提供明确的方向,以做出合理和合乎道德的服务提供决策。