Suppr超能文献

新冠疫情与未能保护最弱势群体的道德失责。

COVID-19 and the moral failure to protect the most vulnerable.

作者信息

Cooley Dennis R

机构信息

Director, Northern Plains Ethics Institute, Editor, Springer's International Library of Bioethics, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, History, Philosophy, and Religious Studies-Dept. 2340, Minard Hall 422J, P.O Box 6050, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, [701] 231-7038, Email:

出版信息

J Healthc Sci Humanit. 2024 Fall;14(1):137-148.

Abstract

The USA's COVID-19 pandemic experience is an example of privileged thinking that what generally works for those in power ought to be the standard for what makes medical interventions, research, treatments, and policy ethical. As a result of not focusing on doing whatever was required for vulnerable or susceptible populations or their members to achieve their health and flourishing, there are a disproportionate numbers of COVID-19 infections and deaths in Black, Hispanic, and indigenous communities. Future studies will likely show even more harm and larger health failure than known of now. Instead of using the language of privilege and power in their thinking, public health organizations should focus far more on the language of diversity and meaningful inclusion. If we truly are interested in the vulnerable and susceptible communities flourishing as individuals and populations within our society, as well as the society's flourishing, then those terms have to be defined in the language of the vulnerable and susceptible. It is only by using this approach that we can make pragmatic plans that work to the advantage of those who are vulnerable or susceptible.

摘要

美国应对新冠疫情的经历体现了一种特权思维,即那些对当权者普遍有效的做法应成为衡量医疗干预、研究、治疗和政策是否符合伦理的标准。由于没有专注于采取一切必要措施来保障弱势群体或易感染人群及其成员实现健康和繁荣,黑人、西班牙裔和原住民社区的新冠感染和死亡人数比例过高。未来的研究可能会显示,实际造成的危害比目前已知的更大,健康方面的失败情况也更为严重。公共卫生组织不应在思维中使用特权和权力的语言,而应更多地关注多样性和有意义的包容的语言。如果我们真的希望弱势群体和易感染群体作为个体和社会群体实现繁荣,同时也希望整个社会繁荣,那么就必须用弱势群体和易感染群体的语言来界定这些概念。只有采用这种方法,我们才能制定出切实可行的计划,造福那些弱势群体或易感染群体。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

4
Racism and Health: Evidence and Needed Research.种族主义与健康:证据与研究需求。
Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 Apr 1;40:105-125. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043750. Epub 2019 Feb 2.
7
Ethical aspects of vulnerability in research.研究中脆弱性的伦理问题。
Poiesis Prax. 2012 Nov;9(1-2):157-162. doi: 10.1007/s10202-012-0109-2. Epub 2012 Oct 17.
10
Vulnerability: what kind of principle is it?脆弱性:它是一种什么样的原则?
Med Health Care Philos. 2004;7(3):281-7. doi: 10.1007/s11019-004-6857-6.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验