Is deliberative democracy possible during a pandemic? Reflections of a bioethicist.

IF 1 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology Pub Date : 2021-09-09 DOI:10.1037/teo0000191
J. Fins
{"title":"Is deliberative democracy possible during a pandemic? Reflections of a bioethicist.","authors":"J. Fins","doi":"10.1037/teo0000191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1985, Governor Mario Cuomo established the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law to provide guidance on issues at the interface of medicine, ethics and the law. During its tenure, the Task Force has been the leading state-based commission in this space producing landmark reports on end-of-life care, physician-assisted suicide, genetic testing, newborn care, brain death, surrogate decision making, assisted reproduction, and ventilator allocation in pandemic flu. These documents have informed state policy, both regulatory and statutory, and had an outsized influence on policy deliberation nationwide. Despite this notable provenance, the Task Force was missing in action during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although individual members were sought for consultation, the Task Force as a whole did not meet during the entirety of the pandemic. This article will explore the consequences of this omission and argue that as a deliberative body, the Task Force should have been an essential component of statewide debate on questions of crisis standards of care, health equity, and vaccine allocation. The COVID-19 experience exposed weaknesses in New York's process of deliberative democracy in response to the pandemic. A state with a distinguished history in this interdisciplinary space was left behind with the views of important constituencies left unheard and communities unserved. Better apprehending how this abdication of responsibility occurred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement This has public policy significiance as it can help prevent its recurrence in the future and lead to more trustworthy, inclusive and effective public health and health law governance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)","PeriodicalId":17332,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In 1985, Governor Mario Cuomo established the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law to provide guidance on issues at the interface of medicine, ethics and the law. During its tenure, the Task Force has been the leading state-based commission in this space producing landmark reports on end-of-life care, physician-assisted suicide, genetic testing, newborn care, brain death, surrogate decision making, assisted reproduction, and ventilator allocation in pandemic flu. These documents have informed state policy, both regulatory and statutory, and had an outsized influence on policy deliberation nationwide. Despite this notable provenance, the Task Force was missing in action during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although individual members were sought for consultation, the Task Force as a whole did not meet during the entirety of the pandemic. This article will explore the consequences of this omission and argue that as a deliberative body, the Task Force should have been an essential component of statewide debate on questions of crisis standards of care, health equity, and vaccine allocation. The COVID-19 experience exposed weaknesses in New York's process of deliberative democracy in response to the pandemic. A state with a distinguished history in this interdisciplinary space was left behind with the views of important constituencies left unheard and communities unserved. Better apprehending how this abdication of responsibility occurred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement This has public policy significiance as it can help prevent its recurrence in the future and lead to more trustworthy, inclusive and effective public health and health law governance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
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
在大流行期间,协商民主可能吗?一个生物伦理学家的思考。
1985年,州长马里奥·科莫(Mario Cuomo)成立了纽约州生命与法律特别工作组,就医学、伦理和法律方面的问题提供指导。在其任期内,工作队一直是这一领域的主要州级委员会,就生命末期护理、医生协助自杀、基因检测、新生儿护理、脑死亡、代理决策、辅助生殖和大流行流感中的呼吸机分配等问题发表了具有里程碑意义的报告。这些文件为国家政策提供了信息,包括监管和法定政策,并对全国的政策审议产生了巨大影响。尽管有这一显著的来源,但在2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间,工作队没有采取行动。虽然要求个别成员进行协商,但在整个大流行期间,工作队没有举行全体会议。本文将探讨这一遗漏的后果,并认为作为一个审议机构,工作队本应成为全州范围内关于危机护理标准、卫生公平和疫苗分配问题的辩论的重要组成部分。2019冠状病毒病的经历暴露了纽约应对大流行的协商民主进程的弱点。一个在这个跨学科领域有着杰出历史的州被抛在了后面,重要选民的意见被忽视,社区得不到服务。更好地理解这种推卸责任的行为是如何发生的。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2021 APA,保留所有权利)影响声明这具有公共政策意义,因为它可以帮助防止未来再次发生,并导致更值得信赖、包容和有效的公共卫生和卫生法律治理。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2021 APA,版权所有)
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
The boundaries of moral responsibility and racially oriented microaggressions. Intersectionality: A dialogue with Marxism–Leninism. In defense of the resampling account of replication. The failed interventions of psychoanalysis: Psychoanalysis and neuroscience as a proxy intervention to psychoanalysis and philosophy. Neoteny and the meaning of life.
×
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