危机护理标准下的残疾治疗:COVID-19期间随时间变化的实证和规范分析

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ari Ne'eman, Michael Ashley Stein, Zackary D Berger, Doron Dorfman
{"title":"危机护理标准下的残疾治疗:COVID-19期间随时间变化的实证和规范分析","authors":"Ari Ne'eman,&nbsp;Michael Ashley Stein,&nbsp;Zackary D Berger,&nbsp;Doron Dorfman","doi":"10.1215/03616878-9156005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>COVID-19 has prompted debates between bioethicists and disability activists about Crisis Standards of Care plans (CSCs), triage protocols determining the allocation of scarce lifesaving care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examine CSCs in 35 states and code how they approach disability, comparing states that have revised their plans over time to those that have not. We offer ethical and legal analyses evaluating to what extent changes to state policy aligned with disability rights law and ethics during the early pandemic and subsequently as stakeholder engagement grew.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>While disability rights views were not well represented in CSCs that were not updated or updated early in the pandemic, states that revised their plans later in the pandemic were more aligned with advocate priorities. However, many CSCs continue to include concerning provisions, especially the reliance on long-term survival, which implicates considerations of both disability rights and racial justice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The disability rights movement's successes in influencing state triage policy should inform future CSCs and set the stage for further work on how stakeholders influence bioethics policy debates. We offer thoughts for examining bioethics policy making reflecting the processes by which activists seek policy change and the tension policy makers face between expert delegation and mediating values conflicts.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8957387/pdf/nihms-1714204.pdf","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Treatment of Disability under Crisis Standards of Care: An Empirical and Normative Analysis of Change over Time during COVID-19.\",\"authors\":\"Ari Ne'eman,&nbsp;Michael Ashley Stein,&nbsp;Zackary D Berger,&nbsp;Doron Dorfman\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/03616878-9156005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>COVID-19 has prompted debates between bioethicists and disability activists about Crisis Standards of Care plans (CSCs), triage protocols determining the allocation of scarce lifesaving care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examine CSCs in 35 states and code how they approach disability, comparing states that have revised their plans over time to those that have not. We offer ethical and legal analyses evaluating to what extent changes to state policy aligned with disability rights law and ethics during the early pandemic and subsequently as stakeholder engagement grew.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>While disability rights views were not well represented in CSCs that were not updated or updated early in the pandemic, states that revised their plans later in the pandemic were more aligned with advocate priorities. However, many CSCs continue to include concerning provisions, especially the reliance on long-term survival, which implicates considerations of both disability rights and racial justice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The disability rights movement's successes in influencing state triage policy should inform future CSCs and set the stage for further work on how stakeholders influence bioethics policy debates. We offer thoughts for examining bioethics policy making reflecting the processes by which activists seek policy change and the tension policy makers face between expert delegation and mediating values conflicts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8957387/pdf/nihms-1714204.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-9156005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-9156005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

背景:COVID-19引发了生物伦理学家和残疾活动人士之间关于危机护理标准计划(CSCs)的辩论,该计划是决定稀缺救生护理分配的分诊协议。方法:我们研究了35个州的csc,并对它们如何处理残疾问题进行了编码,比较了那些随着时间的推移修改了计划的州和那些没有修改计划的州。我们提供道德和法律分析,评估在早期大流行期间以及随后随着利益攸关方参与的增加,国家政策在多大程度上符合残疾人权利法律和道德规范。调查结果:虽然在大流行早期未更新或未更新的csc中没有很好地体现残疾人权利观点,但在大流行后期修订计划的国家更符合倡导的优先事项。然而,许多csc继续包括有关条款,特别是对长期生存的依赖,这涉及到残疾人权利和种族正义的考虑。结论:残疾人权利运动在影响国家分类政策方面的成功应该为未来的csc提供信息,并为利益相关者如何影响生物伦理政策辩论的进一步工作奠定基础。我们为审查生物伦理政策制定提供了一些想法,这些政策制定反映了活动家寻求政策变化的过程,以及政策制定者在专家授权和调解价值观冲突之间面临的紧张关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Treatment of Disability under Crisis Standards of Care: An Empirical and Normative Analysis of Change over Time during COVID-19.

The Treatment of Disability under Crisis Standards of Care: An Empirical and Normative Analysis of Change over Time during COVID-19.

The Treatment of Disability under Crisis Standards of Care: An Empirical and Normative Analysis of Change over Time during COVID-19.

Context: COVID-19 has prompted debates between bioethicists and disability activists about Crisis Standards of Care plans (CSCs), triage protocols determining the allocation of scarce lifesaving care.

Methods: We examine CSCs in 35 states and code how they approach disability, comparing states that have revised their plans over time to those that have not. We offer ethical and legal analyses evaluating to what extent changes to state policy aligned with disability rights law and ethics during the early pandemic and subsequently as stakeholder engagement grew.

Findings: While disability rights views were not well represented in CSCs that were not updated or updated early in the pandemic, states that revised their plans later in the pandemic were more aligned with advocate priorities. However, many CSCs continue to include concerning provisions, especially the reliance on long-term survival, which implicates considerations of both disability rights and racial justice.

Conclusions: The disability rights movement's successes in influencing state triage policy should inform future CSCs and set the stage for further work on how stakeholders influence bioethics policy debates. We offer thoughts for examining bioethics policy making reflecting the processes by which activists seek policy change and the tension policy makers face between expert delegation and mediating values conflicts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
×
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