Maintaining Health Care in Occupied Ukraine: Criminal Collaboration or Conscientious Professionalism?

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Michael L. Gross
{"title":"Maintaining Health Care in Occupied Ukraine: Criminal Collaboration or Conscientious Professionalism?","authors":"Michael L. Gross","doi":"10.1002/hast.70005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Following Russia's occupation of Eastern Ukraine, local health care professionals, particularly hospital administrators and public health officials, have faced criminal charges of medical collaboration for taking senior managerial positions in the occupation regime and allocating resources to the Russian army. Although Ukraine is entitled to prosecute collaborators who threaten its national security, the grounds for criminalizing medical administration during military occupation are much weaker and essentially indefensible. During occupation, international humanitarian law requires Russia to maintain adequate health care services with the assistance of local officials, protects these officials from prosecution, and ensures their independence as they weigh their professional duties to maintain essential health care for the civilian population. An analysis of representative legal cases charging health care professionals with treason and collaboration demonstrates the shortfalls of Ukrainian policy that (a) does not clearly differentiate between charges of collaboration, aiding and abetting the enemy, and treason, (b) rejects public health officials’ duty to cooperate with an occupation regime, and (c) ignores health care administrators’ right to condition their decision to cooperate on its attendant costs and benefits. Recognizing a policy of</i> humanitarian cooperation <i>rectifies these deficiencies by highlighting the independence of health care officials, their protection from prosecution by Ukrainian and Russian authorities, and each party's duty to maintain adequate medical care for the local population during military occupation</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"55 4","pages":"24-38"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.70005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following Russia's occupation of Eastern Ukraine, local health care professionals, particularly hospital administrators and public health officials, have faced criminal charges of medical collaboration for taking senior managerial positions in the occupation regime and allocating resources to the Russian army. Although Ukraine is entitled to prosecute collaborators who threaten its national security, the grounds for criminalizing medical administration during military occupation are much weaker and essentially indefensible. During occupation, international humanitarian law requires Russia to maintain adequate health care services with the assistance of local officials, protects these officials from prosecution, and ensures their independence as they weigh their professional duties to maintain essential health care for the civilian population. An analysis of representative legal cases charging health care professionals with treason and collaboration demonstrates the shortfalls of Ukrainian policy that (a) does not clearly differentiate between charges of collaboration, aiding and abetting the enemy, and treason, (b) rejects public health officials’ duty to cooperate with an occupation regime, and (c) ignores health care administrators’ right to condition their decision to cooperate on its attendant costs and benefits. Recognizing a policy of humanitarian cooperation rectifies these deficiencies by highlighting the independence of health care officials, their protection from prosecution by Ukrainian and Russian authorities, and each party's duty to maintain adequate medical care for the local population during military occupation.

在被占领的乌克兰维持医疗保健:犯罪合作还是认真的专业?
在俄罗斯占领乌克兰东部之后,当地保健专业人员,特别是医院行政人员和公共卫生官员,因在占领政权担任高级管理职务和向俄罗斯军队分配资源而面临医疗合作的刑事指控。虽然乌克兰有权起诉威胁其国家安全的通敌者,但将军事占领期间的医疗管理定为刑事犯罪的理由要弱得多,而且基本上站不住脚。在占领期间,国际人道主义法要求俄罗斯在地方官员的协助下维持适当的保健服务,保护这些官员不受起诉,并确保他们在权衡为平民维持基本保健的专业职责时的独立性。对指控卫生保健专业人员犯有叛国罪和通敌罪的代表性法律案件的分析表明,乌克兰政策的不足之处:(a)没有明确区分通敌、协助和教唆罪和叛国罪的指控,(b)拒绝公共卫生官员与占领政权合作的义务,以及(c)忽视卫生保健管理人员根据其合作的成本和利益决定其合作决定的权利。认识到人道主义合作政策可以纠正这些缺陷,强调保健官员的独立性,保护他们不受乌克兰和俄罗斯当局的起诉,以及每一方在军事占领期间为当地居民提供适当医疗服务的义务。
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
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信