Makris George
Department of Neurology, Venizeleio General Hospital, Heraklion, Crete, 71409, Greece.
Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Dec 11;9:115. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20547.2. eCollection 2024.
The emergency context of the Covid-19 pandemic necessitated the use of national and international public health measures of unprecedented scale to minimize mortality and morbidity, often in conflict with other principles and rights, such as the autonomy of individuals. Concerns have been voiced that for populations facing precarity, such as migrants, a disproportionate and unfair application of restrictive measures, deficient application of protective measures, and even enforcement of restrictive migration policies under the pretext of the pandemic has occurred.
Experts have proposed various principles as possible moral foundations of public health interventions. The author used two public health ethics frameworks to examine the ethical acceptability of movement restrictions on asylum seekers residing in refugee camps in Greece from March 2020 to October 2020.
Most of the principles described in the frameworks for the ethical application of movement restrictions were not adhered to. Main concerns include that, measures were prolonged despite lack of evidence about their effectiveness to reduce morbidity and mortality, while posing severe and disproportionate burdens for this population.
An ethically acceptable public health response to Covid-19 is incompatible with certain living conditions of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants. Moral and political determinants of health, such as social inequalities and criteria for health resources allocation, can shape the form and effectiveness of public health interventions during emergencies. The role of the discipline of public health to address these underlying determinants, that influence health-related outcomes, is an important moral question in itself. It is essential for public health professionals to be aware of the moral theorizations that underpin their work, so as to ensure that their policies align with them and to contribute to the debate that shapes these determinants.
新冠疫情的紧急情况使得必须采取规模空前的国内和国际公共卫生措施,以尽量减少死亡率和发病率,而这些措施往往与其他原则和权利相冲突,比如个人自主权。有人担心,对于面临不稳定状况的人群,如移民,出现了限制措施的过度和不公平应用、保护措施的应用不足,甚至以疫情为借口实施限制性移民政策的情况。
专家们提出了各种原则,作为公共卫生干预措施可能的道德基础。作者运用两个公共卫生伦理框架,审视了2020年3月至2020年10月期间对居住在希腊难民营中的寻求庇护者实施行动限制的伦理可接受性。
行动限制伦理应用框架中描述的大多数原则都未得到遵守。主要担忧包括,尽管缺乏证据表明这些措施能有效降低发病率和死亡率,但措施仍被延长,同时给这一人群带来了严重且不成比例的负担。
对新冠疫情符合伦理的公共卫生应对措施与难民、寻求庇护者和移民的某些生活条件不相容。健康的道德和政治决定因素,如社会不平等和卫生资源分配标准,会在紧急情况下塑造公共卫生干预措施的形式和效果。公共卫生学科在解决这些影响健康相关结果的潜在决定因素方面所起的作用,本身就是一个重要的道德问题。公共卫生专业人员必须意识到支撑其工作的道德理论,以确保其政策与之相符,并为塑造这些决定因素的辩论做出贡献。