疫苗接种可以起到平衡作用?评估COVID-19疫苗优先级和补偿。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LAW Medical Law Review Pub Date : 2022-12-08 DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwac020
Christian Günther, Lauren Tonti, Irene Domenici
{"title":"疫苗接种可以起到平衡作用?评估COVID-19疫苗优先级和补偿。","authors":"Christian Günther,&nbsp;Lauren Tonti,&nbsp;Irene Domenici","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwac020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article assesses the equity of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in three jurisdictions that have historically taken different approaches to the institutionalisation of equity considerations. The Sars-Cov-2 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief persistent societal inequalities and has added novel dimensions to these problems. Certain groups have proved particularly vulnerable, both in terms of infection risk and severity as well as the accompanying social fallout. Against this background the implementation of 'objective' vaccination programmes may seem like a great leveller, addressing the disparate risks that are tied to social determinants of health and the pandemic behemoth. However, implementing vaccination programmes in an equitable manner is itself essential for the realisation of such a vision. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the English, Italian, and American jurisdictions and critically assesses two aspects of their vaccination frameworks: (i) the prioritisation of groups for vaccination and (ii) the nature of public compensation schemes for those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. It examines whether and to what extent these measures address the inequalities raised by COVID-19 and the role of the law in this pursuit.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":"30 4","pages":"584-609"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9732649/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vaccination as an Equaliser? Evaluating COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritisation and Compensation.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Günther,&nbsp;Lauren Tonti,&nbsp;Irene Domenici\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/medlaw/fwac020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article assesses the equity of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in three jurisdictions that have historically taken different approaches to the institutionalisation of equity considerations. The Sars-Cov-2 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief persistent societal inequalities and has added novel dimensions to these problems. Certain groups have proved particularly vulnerable, both in terms of infection risk and severity as well as the accompanying social fallout. Against this background the implementation of 'objective' vaccination programmes may seem like a great leveller, addressing the disparate risks that are tied to social determinants of health and the pandemic behemoth. However, implementing vaccination programmes in an equitable manner is itself essential for the realisation of such a vision. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the English, Italian, and American jurisdictions and critically assesses two aspects of their vaccination frameworks: (i) the prioritisation of groups for vaccination and (ii) the nature of public compensation schemes for those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. It examines whether and to what extent these measures address the inequalities raised by COVID-19 and the role of the law in this pursuit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"584-609\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9732649/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwac020\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwac020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文评估了三个司法管辖区COVID-19疫苗接种规划的公平性,这三个司法管辖区历史上采取了不同的方法将公平性考虑制度化。Sars-Cov-2大流行凸显了持续存在的社会不平等,并为这些问题增添了新的层面。事实证明,无论是在感染风险和严重程度方面,还是在随之而来的社会后果方面,某些群体都特别脆弱。在这种背景下,实施“客观的”疫苗接种规划似乎是一个很好的平衡器,可以解决与健康的社会决定因素和大流行庞然大物相关的不同风险。然而,以公平的方式实施疫苗接种规划本身对于实现这一愿景至关重要。本文对英国、意大利和美国的司法管辖区进行了比较分析,并批判性地评估了其疫苗接种框架的两个方面:(i)疫苗接种群体的优先次序和(ii)遭受疫苗相关伤害的人的公共赔偿计划的性质。报告审查了这些措施是否以及在多大程度上解决了COVID-19造成的不平等问题,以及法律在这方面的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Vaccination as an Equaliser? Evaluating COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritisation and Compensation.

This article assesses the equity of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in three jurisdictions that have historically taken different approaches to the institutionalisation of equity considerations. The Sars-Cov-2 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief persistent societal inequalities and has added novel dimensions to these problems. Certain groups have proved particularly vulnerable, both in terms of infection risk and severity as well as the accompanying social fallout. Against this background the implementation of 'objective' vaccination programmes may seem like a great leveller, addressing the disparate risks that are tied to social determinants of health and the pandemic behemoth. However, implementing vaccination programmes in an equitable manner is itself essential for the realisation of such a vision. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the English, Italian, and American jurisdictions and critically assesses two aspects of their vaccination frameworks: (i) the prioritisation of groups for vaccination and (ii) the nature of public compensation schemes for those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. It examines whether and to what extent these measures address the inequalities raised by COVID-19 and the role of the law in this pursuit.

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
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
期刊最新文献
Towards a rights-based approach for disabled women's access to abortion. Addressing the consequences of the corporatization of reproductive medicine. Guy's and St Thomas'-v-Knight [2021] EWHC 25: Dignity in English law. Donor conception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, choices, and procedural justice: an argument for reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Anticipatory declarations in obstetric care: a relational and spatial examination of patient empowerment, institutional impacts and temporal challenges.
×
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