Mobile applications are a beneficial tool to fight the coronavirus. With the mobile tracing applications, it became easier to cut the chain of transmission of the virus and reduce the number of daily cases. Many countries developed their applications and made them available to their citizens. While using these applications, it is necessary to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. This frequent processing of individuals' health data has created legal problems regarding the protection of personal data. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on the Turkish Covid-19 tracing application “Hayat Eve Sığar-HES” and the legal issues behind the application.
移动应用程序是对抗冠状病毒的有益工具。有了移动追踪应用程序，就更容易切断病毒的传播链，减少每天的病例数。许多国家开发了自己的应用程序，并向本国公民开放。在使用这些应用程序时，有必要保护个人的基本权利和自由。这种对个人健康数据的频繁处理造成了保护个人数据方面的法律问题。本文旨在对土耳其新冠病毒追踪应用“Hayat Eve Sığar-HES”及其背后的法律问题进行研究。
{"title":"The HES-code and the data protection during COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey","authors":"Sabah Mine Cangil","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.28163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.28163","url":null,"abstract":"Mobile applications are a beneficial tool to fight the coronavirus. With the mobile tracing applications, it became easier to cut the chain of transmission of the virus and reduce the number of daily cases. Many countries developed their applications and made them available to their citizens. While using these applications, it is necessary to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. This frequent processing of individuals' health data has created legal problems regarding the protection of personal data. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on the Turkish Covid-19 tracing application “Hayat Eve Sığar-HES” and the legal issues behind the application. ","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90392597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The launch of a nationwide consultation in January 2021 by the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the regulation of genetic technologies has been used as an opportunity by the UK Government to gauge public and scientific opinion on the applications of gene editing in agriculture and aquaculture. In particular, the consultation sought to consider the controversial question of whether gene editing (GE) should be subject to the same regulations as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The distinction between GE and GMO products, as well as between the legal regulations governing them, are highly important: currently, the UK still follows the EU’s restrictive approach, whereby gene editing is regulated in the same way as GMOs. However, in light of the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK government seems willing to reconsider this approach and adopt a new regulatory framework characterised by less stringent controls. Accordingly, this review paper examines the current legal framework on gene editing and GMOs in the UK and EU, as well as in other relevant jurisdictions, before then examining the Defra consultation in light of the mixed responses to it from both the scientific community and the general public. The paper concludes with a number of considerations that should inform any proposed post-Brexit reform of the framework that allows for the correct balance to be struck between scientific development, food security, human health, and the environment.
{"title":"Review of the current and post-Brexit UK legal framework on the regulation of genetic technologies","authors":"Adiba Firmansyah","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.28152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.28152","url":null,"abstract":"The launch of a nationwide consultation in January 2021 by the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the regulation of genetic technologies has been used as an opportunity by the UK Government to gauge public and scientific opinion on the applications of gene editing in agriculture and aquaculture. In particular, the consultation sought to consider the controversial question of whether gene editing (GE) should be subject to the same regulations as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The distinction between GE and GMO products, as well as between the legal regulations governing them, are highly important: currently, the UK still follows the EU’s restrictive approach, whereby gene editing is regulated in the same way as GMOs. However, in light of the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK government seems willing to reconsider this approach and adopt a new regulatory framework characterised by less stringent controls. Accordingly, this review paper examines the current legal framework on gene editing and GMOs in the UK and EU, as well as in other relevant jurisdictions, before then examining the Defra consultation in light of the mixed responses to it from both the scientific community and the general public. The paper concludes with a number of considerations that should inform any proposed post-Brexit reform of the framework that allows for the correct balance to be struck between scientific development, food security, human health, and the environment. ","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76080014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ο θεσμός της Εθνικής Επιτροπής Βιοηθικής & Τεχνοηθικής και οι νέες προκλήσεις","authors":"Χαράλαμπος Τσέκερης, Έφη Βαγενά","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.30547","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.30547","url":null,"abstract":" ","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86882657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction: Scientific progress has considerably increased the risk of unexpected bioterrorist attacks. In accordance comes the necessity for a potent “shield” of protection, known as “biosecurity” and widely referred as “biodefense”. However, ethical challenges and concerns, arising along with bioterrorism, are inevitable to address.Methods: COVID-19 outbreak immerged the significance of preexisting powerful biodefense systems. Primary factors to consider are theirs efficacy, the availability of capable emergency plans, adequate personal protective equipment, and sufficient funding. Least but not last comes the proper comprehension of risk assessment and the promotion of prevention, which contributes fundamentally in avoiding the outbreak, even before the harmful biological agent has begun spreading itself among the community.Results: Meticulous data recording will promote our knowledge of effectively constructive biodefense systems and will contribute in identifying crucial bioethical issues, as well to legislate accordingly, nationally, and internationally, in order to duly address the emerging threats. Conclusion: Drastic measures against bioterrorism are inevitable to take, so is the foundation of sufficient biodefense systems, which should lay on scientific knowledge that drives from relevant research, and general consent. Ultimately is, the establishment of international laws, to propel collaboration among nations and eliminate future bioterrorist attacks.
{"title":"Η βιοτρομοκρατία και η σύγχρονη αναγκαιότητα της βιοάμυνας","authors":"Natalia Amasiadi","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.28157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.28157","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Scientific progress has considerably increased the risk of unexpected bioterrorist attacks. In accordance comes the necessity for a potent “shield” of protection, known as “biosecurity” and widely referred as “biodefense”. However, ethical challenges and concerns, arising along with bioterrorism, are inevitable to address.Methods: COVID-19 outbreak immerged the significance of preexisting powerful biodefense systems. Primary factors to consider are theirs efficacy, the availability of capable emergency plans, adequate personal protective equipment, and sufficient funding. Least but not last comes the proper comprehension of risk assessment and the promotion of prevention, which contributes fundamentally in avoiding the outbreak, even before the harmful biological agent has begun spreading itself among the community.Results: Meticulous data recording will promote our knowledge of effectively constructive biodefense systems and will contribute in identifying crucial bioethical issues, as well to legislate accordingly, nationally, and internationally, in order to duly address the emerging threats. Conclusion: Drastic measures against bioterrorism are inevitable to take, so is the foundation of sufficient biodefense systems, which should lay on scientific knowledge that drives from relevant research, and general consent. Ultimately is, the establishment of international laws, to propel collaboration among nations and eliminate future bioterrorist attacks. ","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82121392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ο θεσμός της Εθνικής Επιτροπής Βιοηθικής & Τεχνοηθικής και οι νέες προκλήσεις","authors":"Charalambos Tsekeris, Effy Vayena","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.28164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.28164","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77369438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A central issue in the ethical public debate on genetic enhancement concerns the inequalities in skills, opportunities and welfare that might be created and established between rich and poor. Many argue that if only the wealthy can have access to enhancements, then existing unjust inequalities will be consolidated and new ones will emerge in the future. Therefore, they argue, state has a role to play against the exacerbating of existing inequalities and the emergence of future ones and determine a genetic policy that will regulate a fair distribution of genetic means under specific principles of justice. This article has two main sections. In the first and shorter section, I examine a case where access to enhancement would be unlimited for everyone. In the second and longer section, I examine the principles that a state should adopt in order to treat the unjust inequalities that could result from limited access to enhancement. Finally, I outline part of my own approach to a just genetic state policy.
{"title":"Genetic interventions, inequalities and the role of the state","authors":"G. Athanasiadis","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.28149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.28149","url":null,"abstract":"A central issue in the ethical public debate on genetic enhancement concerns the inequalities in skills, opportunities and welfare that might be created and established between rich and poor. Many argue that if only the wealthy can have access to enhancements, then existing unjust inequalities will be consolidated and new ones will emerge in the future. Therefore, they argue, state has a role to play against the exacerbating of existing inequalities and the emergence of future ones and determine a genetic policy that will regulate a fair distribution of genetic means under specific principles of justice. This article has two main sections. In the first and shorter section, I examine a case where access to enhancement would be unlimited for everyone. In the second and longer section, I examine the principles that a state should adopt in order to treat the unjust inequalities that could result from limited access to enhancement. Finally, I outline part of my own approach to a just genetic state policy.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83128574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the last three decades, the dilemma of End-of-Life is one of the most disputed bio-juridical questions Italy is confronting with. By raising highly sensitive ethical, legal and political dilemmas, it has deeply divided the Italian society, the scientific community and the political arena. In the context of a raging controversy, the Italian Parliament has opted for silence. Thus, an evolutive, judicial route has marked the legal frame in response to numerous, concrete demands of recognition of the freedom of self-determination and value of dignity in the final phase of life. In this review article, an overview of the judicial evolution of the complex mosaic of end-of-life issues will be firstly offered through three cases, pillars on which the latest judicial evolution on assisted suicide lays its foundations. Secondly, the issue of assisted suicide will be singularly addressed through the examination of the Cappato case which has outlined the path for the historical ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, no'242 of 2019 on the constitutional illegitimacy of the crime of assistance to suicide under article 580 of the Italian Criminal Code. Precisely, the Court has pointed out several, concurrent requirements in presence of which an active conduct directly connected with suicide is not criminally relevant: the autonomous and free formation of the individual will, the irreversible nature of the disease, the ongoing practice of a life-saving treatment, the intolerability of the physical or psychological sufferings and the mental capacity to self-determination. Among the numerous, emerging, interpretative questions, the latest Trentini case, in which the requirement of life-saving treatment has been interpreted as inclusive of pharmacological therapy and of every material, sanitary life-saving assistance, will be further evaluated. Conclusively, a cross section of the fragile interplay between the legislative power and the judiciary power will be depicted in reference to the main open interpretative questions related to the enforcement of the constitutional ruling and a portrait of the upcoming scenerios, as the existing legislative drafts and the prepositive referendum question, will be concisely examined.
{"title":"Along the Italian route of End-of-life: the latest judicial evolution on assisted suicide","authors":"T. Andreani","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.28158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.28158","url":null,"abstract":"In the last three decades, the dilemma of End-of-Life is one of the most disputed bio-juridical questions Italy is confronting with. By raising highly sensitive ethical, legal and political dilemmas, it has deeply divided the Italian society, the scientific community and the political arena. In the context of a raging controversy, the Italian Parliament has opted for silence. Thus, an evolutive, judicial route has marked the legal frame in response to numerous, concrete demands of recognition of the freedom of self-determination and value of dignity in the final phase of life. In this review article, an overview of the judicial evolution of the complex mosaic of end-of-life issues will be firstly offered through three cases, pillars on which the latest judicial evolution on assisted suicide lays its foundations. Secondly, the issue of assisted suicide will be singularly addressed through the examination of the Cappato case which has outlined the path for the historical ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, no'242 of 2019 on the constitutional illegitimacy of the crime of assistance to suicide under article 580 of the Italian Criminal Code. Precisely, the Court has pointed out several, concurrent requirements in presence of which an active conduct directly connected with suicide is not criminally relevant: the autonomous and free formation of the individual will, the irreversible nature of the disease, the ongoing practice of a life-saving treatment, the intolerability of the physical or psychological sufferings and the mental capacity to self-determination. Among the numerous, emerging, interpretative questions, the latest Trentini case, in which the requirement of life-saving treatment has been interpreted as inclusive of pharmacological therapy and of every material, sanitary life-saving assistance, will be further evaluated. Conclusively, a cross section of the fragile interplay between the legislative power and the judiciary power will be depicted in reference to the main open interpretative questions related to the enforcement of the constitutional ruling and a portrait of the upcoming scenerios, as the existing legislative drafts and the prepositive referendum question, will be concisely examined.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72526749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the new pandemic that humanity is called upon to deal with. The special characteristics of the virus in combination with the absence of effective antiviral medication and vaccine, make the disease a significant threat to global health. This paper addresses the issue of innovation in the midst of a pandemic in the field of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, namely vaccines for the SARS-CoV-2 virus and how these could become public goods that will be provided without expected profit, considered global public goods. The issue is so crucial for public health that the State and the international community are called upon to contribute to research and development, in terms of participating in the business risk of the industry (with public funding), but also to intervene to protection of the global good of public health, possibly considering compulsory patent licensing solutions that will result from vaccine research.
{"title":"Εφευρέσεις επί εμβολίων κατά του ιού SARS-CoV-2","authors":"Leandros Lefakis","doi":"10.12681/BIOETH.24841","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BIOETH.24841","url":null,"abstract":"The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the new pandemic that humanity is called upon to deal with. The special characteristics of the virus in combination with the absence of effective antiviral medication and vaccine, make the disease a significant threat to global health. This paper addresses the issue of innovation in the midst of a pandemic in the field of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, namely vaccines for the SARS-CoV-2 virus and how these could become public goods that will be provided without expected profit, considered global public goods. The issue is so crucial for public health that the State and the international community are called upon to contribute to research and development, in terms of participating in the business risk of the industry (with public funding), but also to intervene to protection of the global good of public health, possibly considering compulsory patent licensing solutions that will result from vaccine research.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76782272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The invention of CRISPR technology and its current and potential applications have been a subject of controversy among scientists, philosophers and legal theorists. After taking under consideration the current discussion concerning the use of CRISPR for editing human genome the article treats the question of a wider offer of CRISPR-based therapies from a Public Healthcare system and proposes method for a fair and financially sustainable way for adopting the new possibilities this new tool has to offer.
{"title":"CRISPR, μια νέα τεχνολογία γενετικής παρέμβασης: Πρόταση αξιοποίησης σε ένα δημόσιο σύστημα υγείας","authors":"Nikolaos Kolisis (Νικόλαος Κολίσης)","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.24843","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.24843","url":null,"abstract":"The invention of CRISPR technology and its current and potential applications have been a subject of controversy among scientists, philosophers and legal theorists. After taking under consideration the current discussion concerning the use of CRISPR for editing human genome the article treats the question of a wider offer of CRISPR-based therapies from a Public Healthcare system and proposes method for a fair and financially sustainable way for adopting the new possibilities this new tool has to offer.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84282303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Schopenhauer is portrayed as the philosopher of pessimism, and for good reason. For him, life is suffering where ‘ultimately death must triumph’ (The World as Will and Representation vol. I, 311). However, his pessimism fades away when he contemplates death. He argues enthusiastically that, far from being an evil, death is in fact a friend we should welcome. Moreover, he believes it is possible for human beings to use their knowledge to fight the fear of death. Interestingly, however, at the point where the reader expects a philosophical defense of suicide, Schopenhauer vehemently argues against it. Suicide to avoid pain and suffering, according to him, is a mistake, a futile, foolish and egoistic act. Not only does suicide not offer a genuine solution to suffering, but also it hinders true salvation, the denial of the will.In this paper, I argue that Schopenhauer’s condemnation of suicide is in fact at odds with his views on death and can weaken his argumentation about why we must not fear death. It is my belief that Schopenhauer’s views on suicide stem - quite ironically - from his being, at times, overly optimistic about the possibility of genuine salvation. When it comes to freeing ourselves from the will, however, we are better off pessimists. This, I explain, will allow us to at least keep our optimism regarding death and find solace in the knowledge that - be it by old age, illness, accident, suicide or any other cause - death is not to be feared.
{"title":"Σοπενχάουερ περί Θανάτου και Αυτοκτονίας","authors":"Lina Papadaki","doi":"10.12681/BIOETH.24835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BIOETH.24835","url":null,"abstract":"Schopenhauer is portrayed as the philosopher of pessimism, and for good reason. For him, life is suffering where ‘ultimately death must triumph’ (The World as Will and Representation vol. I, 311). However, his pessimism fades away when he contemplates death. He argues enthusiastically that, far from being an evil, death is in fact a friend we should welcome. Moreover, he believes it is possible for human beings to use their knowledge to fight the fear of death. Interestingly, however, at the point where the reader expects a philosophical defense of suicide, Schopenhauer vehemently argues against it. Suicide to avoid pain and suffering, according to him, is a mistake, a futile, foolish and egoistic act. Not only does suicide not offer a genuine solution to suffering, but also it hinders true salvation, the denial of the will.In this paper, I argue that Schopenhauer’s condemnation of suicide is in fact at odds with his views on death and can weaken his argumentation about why we must not fear death. It is my belief that Schopenhauer’s views on suicide stem - quite ironically - from his being, at times, overly optimistic about the possibility of genuine salvation. When it comes to freeing ourselves from the will, however, we are better off pessimists. This, I explain, will allow us to at least keep our optimism regarding death and find solace in the knowledge that - be it by old age, illness, accident, suicide or any other cause - death is not to be feared.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85479770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：