Ethics and Inequities in the Context of Urgency : A Qualitative Study With Stakeholders on COVID-19 Decision-Making in Germany and Israel.

IF 2.1 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Verina Wild, Sylvia Agbih, Keren Landsman, Quintus Sleumer, Angus Dawson, Jan-Christoph Heilinger
{"title":"Ethics and Inequities in the Context of Urgency : A Qualitative Study With Stakeholders on COVID-19 Decision-Making in Germany and Israel.","authors":"Verina Wild, Sylvia Agbih, Keren Landsman, Quintus Sleumer, Angus Dawson, Jan-Christoph Heilinger","doi":"10.1007/s11673-026-10573-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Urgent decision-making during the early COVID-19 pandemic raised complex ethical challenges, in particular concerning how to reach and include marginalized populations. To examine these issues, we conducted a qualitative study based on twenty-three semi-structured interviews with pandemic decision-makers and representatives of marginalized populations in Germany and Israel, focusing on decisions made in 2020 before vaccines were available. Key ethical themes emerged, including decision-making with ethical relevance under intense time pressure, the dominance of biomedical framings often at the expense of social considerations, inadequate attention to populations in bio-psycho-socially vulnerable positions, and the exclusion of stakeholders from decision-making processes. These findings have critical normative significance, highlighting issues of justice in the distribution of burdens and benefits, underscoring the importance of epistemic humility in acknowledging uncertainty and diverse forms of expertise, and affirming the moral obligation to integrate considerations of psycho-social vulnerabilities into public health. To inform future policy, we recommend establishing equitable governance structures to ensure broader stakeholder representation, implementing inclusive communication strategies to reach marginalized groups, and strengthening ethically informed crisis preparedness. Such measures can better align urgent public health decision-making with principles of justice, protection from harm, inclusion, and moral responsibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-026-10573-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Urgent decision-making during the early COVID-19 pandemic raised complex ethical challenges, in particular concerning how to reach and include marginalized populations. To examine these issues, we conducted a qualitative study based on twenty-three semi-structured interviews with pandemic decision-makers and representatives of marginalized populations in Germany and Israel, focusing on decisions made in 2020 before vaccines were available. Key ethical themes emerged, including decision-making with ethical relevance under intense time pressure, the dominance of biomedical framings often at the expense of social considerations, inadequate attention to populations in bio-psycho-socially vulnerable positions, and the exclusion of stakeholders from decision-making processes. These findings have critical normative significance, highlighting issues of justice in the distribution of burdens and benefits, underscoring the importance of epistemic humility in acknowledging uncertainty and diverse forms of expertise, and affirming the moral obligation to integrate considerations of psycho-social vulnerabilities into public health. To inform future policy, we recommend establishing equitable governance structures to ensure broader stakeholder representation, implementing inclusive communication strategies to reach marginalized groups, and strengthening ethically informed crisis preparedness. Such measures can better align urgent public health decision-making with principles of justice, protection from harm, inclusion, and moral responsibility.

紧急背景下的道德与不公平:德国和以色列与利益攸关方关于COVID-19决策的定性研究。
在COVID-19大流行早期,紧急决策提出了复杂的伦理挑战,特别是在如何覆盖和包容边缘化人群方面。为了研究这些问题,我们进行了一项定性研究,基于对德国和以色列大流行决策者和边缘化人群代表的23次半结构化访谈,重点关注2020年疫苗可用之前做出的决定。关键的伦理主题出现了,包括在紧迫的时间压力下与伦理相关的决策,生物医学框架的主导地位往往以牺牲社会考虑为代价,对生物心理社会弱势群体的关注不足,以及将利益相关者排除在决策过程之外。这些发现具有重要的规范意义,突出了负担和福利分配中的正义问题,强调了认识上的谦卑在承认不确定性和各种形式的专门知识方面的重要性,并肯定了将心理-社会脆弱性考虑纳入公共卫生的道德义务。为了为未来的政策提供信息,我们建议建立公平的治理结构,以确保更广泛的利益相关者代表,实施包容性沟通战略,以覆盖边缘化群体,并加强道德知情的危机准备。这些措施可以使紧急公共卫生决策更好地符合正义、保护免受伤害、包容和道德责任的原则。
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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
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
小红书