Migration policies versus public health - the ethics of Covid-19 related movement restrictions for asylum seekers in reception centers in Greece in 2020.

Q1 Medicine
Wellcome Open Research Pub Date : 2024-12-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20547.2
George Makris
{"title":"Migration policies versus public health - the ethics of Covid-19 related movement restrictions for asylum seekers in reception centers in Greece in 2020.","authors":"George Makris","doi":"10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20547.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23677,"journal":{"name":"Wellcome Open Research","volume":"9 ","pages":"115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11409434/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wellcome Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20547.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

移民政策与公共卫生--2020 年希腊收容中心对寻求庇护者实施与 Covid-19 相关的行动限制的伦理问题。
背景:在 Covid-19 大流行病的紧急情况下,有必要采取规模空前的国家和国际公共卫 生措施,以尽量降低死亡率和发病率,但这些措施往往与其他原则和权利(如个人自 主权)相冲突。有人担心,对于移民等生活不稳定的人群来说,限制性措施的应用不相称、不公平,保护性措施的应用不足,甚至以大流行病为借口执行限制性移民政策的情况时有发生:作为公共卫生干预措施的道德基础,提出了各种原则。作者利用两个公共卫生伦理框架,研究了从 2020 年 3 月至 2020 年 10 月对居住在希腊难民营的寻求庇护者实施行动限制的伦理可接受性:结果:框架中描述的对行动限制进行伦理应用的大多数原则都没有得到遵守。主要问题包括:尽管没有证据表明这些措施能够有效降低发病率和死亡率,但仍延长了这些措施的实施时间,同时对这些人群造成了严重和不成比例的负担:针对 Covid-19 的可接受的公共卫生对策与难民、寻求庇护者和移民的某些生活条件不相容。当现有的不公正和社会不平等与健康结果有令人信服的联系时,公共卫生学科是否以及在多大程度上具有纠正这些不公正和不平等的固有作用,是为这些人群设计公共卫生干预措施的核心问题。答案可以说明需要解决健康的道德和政治决定因素。公共卫生专业人员必须了解支撑其工作的道德理论,以确保其政策与这些理论保持一致,并为形成这些决定因素的辩论做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Wellcome Open Research
Wellcome Open Research Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
426
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍: Wellcome Open Research publishes scholarly articles reporting any basic scientific, translational and clinical research that has been funded (or co-funded) by Wellcome. Each publication must have at least one author who has been, or still is, a recipient of a Wellcome grant. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others, is welcome and will be published irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies are all suitable. See the full list of article types here. All articles are published using a fully transparent, author-driven model: the authors are solely responsible for the content of their article. Invited peer review takes place openly after publication, and the authors play a crucial role in ensuring that the article is peer-reviewed by independent experts in a timely manner. Articles that pass peer review will be indexed in PubMed and elsewhere. Wellcome Open Research is an Open Research platform: all articles are published open access; the publishing and peer-review processes are fully transparent; and authors are asked to include detailed descriptions of methods and to provide full and easy access to source data underlying the results to improve reproducibility.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信