An Ethical Comparison of the COVID-19 National Disease Control Performance of China, Canada and the U.S. in the First Year of the Pandemic

G. Gellert, Gabriel Gellert
{"title":"An Ethical Comparison of the COVID-19 National Disease Control Performance of China, Canada and the U.S. in the First Year of the Pandemic","authors":"G. Gellert, Gabriel Gellert","doi":"10.18785/jhe.1701.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: First year government pandemic control performance is compared in China, Canada and the USA to understand the ethical bases of different population outcomes achieved. Methods: Comparative analysis of ethical underpinnings and implications of pandemic performance includes degree of authoritarian power deployed to mitigate disease spread; benefits of single payer health care; impact of socioeconomic, racial/ethnic and health care inequities; anti-government sentiment/distrust; national leadership engagement; and science denial. Results: National COVID-19 response efforts vary according to the extent to which they leveraged autocratic tactics, from China whose highly autocratic first year pandemic performance was emulated, through liberal democracies like Canada where ethical compromises were largely avoided, to the USA where federal government abandonment of public health ethics produced one of the deadliest pandemic first year performances. Conclusions: Examining the ethics of pandemic disease control practices can lessen risk of repeated pandemic performance failures, and associated avoidable morbidity/mortality in future pandemics.","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":"355 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online journal of health ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18785/jhe.1701.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: First year government pandemic control performance is compared in China, Canada and the USA to understand the ethical bases of different population outcomes achieved. Methods: Comparative analysis of ethical underpinnings and implications of pandemic performance includes degree of authoritarian power deployed to mitigate disease spread; benefits of single payer health care; impact of socioeconomic, racial/ethnic and health care inequities; anti-government sentiment/distrust; national leadership engagement; and science denial. Results: National COVID-19 response efforts vary according to the extent to which they leveraged autocratic tactics, from China whose highly autocratic first year pandemic performance was emulated, through liberal democracies like Canada where ethical compromises were largely avoided, to the USA where federal government abandonment of public health ethics produced one of the deadliest pandemic first year performances. Conclusions: Examining the ethics of pandemic disease control practices can lessen risk of repeated pandemic performance failures, and associated avoidable morbidity/mortality in future pandemics.
中国、加拿大和美国新冠肺炎疫情第一年国家疾病控制绩效的伦理比较
目的:比较中国、加拿大和美国政府第一年的流行病控制绩效,以了解不同人口结果的伦理基础。方法:对流行病绩效的伦理基础和影响进行比较分析,包括为减轻疾病传播而部署的专制权力的程度;单一付款人医疗保健的好处;社会经济、种族/民族和保健不平等的影响;反政府情绪/不信任;国家领导参与;否认科学。结果:各国应对COVID-19的努力因其利用专制策略的程度而有所不同,从模仿中国高度专制的第一年大流行表现,到加拿大等基本避免伦理妥协的自由民主国家,再到美国,联邦政府放弃公共卫生伦理导致了最致命的第一年大流行表现之一。结论:审查大流行性疾病控制做法的道德规范可以减少大流行绩效反复失败的风险,以及在未来大流行中相关的可避免的发病率/死亡率。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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