Prise de décision, répartition des ressources médicales et personnes âgées en contexte de COVID-19 : une anthropologie de et pour la bioéthique

IF 0.3 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS Canadian Journal of Bioethics Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.7202/1094692ar
Alizée Lajeunesse
{"title":"Prise de décision, répartition des ressources médicales et personnes âgées en contexte de COVID-19 : une anthropologie de et pour la bioéthique","authors":"Alizée Lajeunesse","doi":"10.7202/1094692ar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, decision-making practices related to the allocation of medical resources and the treatment of the elderly inform us about the ethics present in the health care setting and at the societal level. The comparison between decision-making in the daily context and the particularity of a pandemic ethics highlights the transition between a non-pandemic ethics and a \"pandethics\". The public health ethics approach, particularly utilitarian, has been brought forward in a prominent way in the ethical debates and dilemmas surrounding resource allocation and prioritization. By raising the oppositions and issues associated with age rationing discourses and choices, the question of the treatment of the elderly in the context of COVID-19, and the ageism experienced in this context, emerges. At the same time, difficult ethical decisions and choices are intertwined with the caregiver's duty to care, and therefore the possibility of moral injury. Conflict emerges between ethical decision-making practices and the caregiver's personal or professional values, as the balance between various duties is upset. Alternative approaches and ethics are thus put forward in light of the situations experienced, particularly in the context of long-term care. The thesis developed here aims to support the added value of anthropology to decision-making processes and its more formal integration into well-known approaches in bioethics. Using an anthropological perspective, I conclude by exploring avenues of reflection associated with the ethics of discussion, vulnerability, feminism, or care as other ways of approaching decision-making in the context of a pandemic, at a time when ethical and social reflection is essential.","PeriodicalId":37334,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Bioethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1094692ar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, decision-making practices related to the allocation of medical resources and the treatment of the elderly inform us about the ethics present in the health care setting and at the societal level. The comparison between decision-making in the daily context and the particularity of a pandemic ethics highlights the transition between a non-pandemic ethics and a "pandethics". The public health ethics approach, particularly utilitarian, has been brought forward in a prominent way in the ethical debates and dilemmas surrounding resource allocation and prioritization. By raising the oppositions and issues associated with age rationing discourses and choices, the question of the treatment of the elderly in the context of COVID-19, and the ageism experienced in this context, emerges. At the same time, difficult ethical decisions and choices are intertwined with the caregiver's duty to care, and therefore the possibility of moral injury. Conflict emerges between ethical decision-making practices and the caregiver's personal or professional values, as the balance between various duties is upset. Alternative approaches and ethics are thus put forward in light of the situations experienced, particularly in the context of long-term care. The thesis developed here aims to support the added value of anthropology to decision-making processes and its more formal integration into well-known approaches in bioethics. Using an anthropological perspective, I conclude by exploring avenues of reflection associated with the ethics of discussion, vulnerability, feminism, or care as other ways of approaching decision-making in the context of a pandemic, at a time when ethical and social reflection is essential.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19背景下的决策、医疗资源分配和老年人:生物伦理学的人类学
在2019冠状病毒病大流行的背景下,与医疗资源分配和老年人治疗相关的决策做法让我们了解了卫生保健环境和社会层面存在的伦理问题。日常决策与流行病伦理的特殊性之间的比较突出了非流行病伦理与“流行病伦理”之间的过渡。在围绕资源分配和优先次序的伦理辩论和困境中,公共卫生伦理方法,特别是功利主义,已以突出的方式提出。通过提出与年龄配给话语和选择相关的反对意见和问题,新冠肺炎背景下的老年人治疗问题以及在此背景下经历的年龄歧视问题浮出水面。与此同时,艰难的道德决定和选择与照顾者的照顾义务交织在一起,因此有可能造成道德伤害。当各种职责之间的平衡被打破时,道德决策实践与护理者的个人或职业价值观之间就会出现冲突。因此,根据所经历的情况,特别是在长期护理的背景下,提出了替代方法和伦理。本文旨在支持人类学在决策过程中的附加价值,并将其更正式地整合到众所周知的生物伦理学方法中。最后,我从人类学的角度探讨了与讨论伦理、脆弱性、女权主义或关怀相关的反思途径,作为在大流行背景下进行决策的其他方式,在道德和社会反思至关重要的时候。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Bioethics
Canadian Journal of Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
35 weeks
期刊最新文献
Developing a New Clinical Ethics Framework for Rehab: A Pre-Implementation Evaluation from the Perspective of Future Users De la pudeur dans les soins Migrating Metaphors: Why We Should Be Concerned About a ‘War on Mental Illness’ in the Aftermath of COVID-19 Bioéthique globale : une question d’aménagement du paysage social et intellectuel An Ethics-informed, Policy-based Approach to the Management of Challenges Posed by Living-at-Risk, Frequent Users of Emergency Departments
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1