互惠、公平与澳大利亚 COVID-19 酒店检疫的财政负担。

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2023-12-20 eCollection Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1093/phe/phad027
Kari Pahlman, Jane Williams, Diego S Silva, Louis Taffs, Bridget Haire
{"title":"互惠、公平与澳大利亚 COVID-19 酒店检疫的财政负担。","authors":"Kari Pahlman, Jane Williams, Diego S Silva, Louis Taffs, Bridget Haire","doi":"10.1093/phe/phad027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In late March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia introduced mandatory 14-day supervised quarantine at hotels and other designated facilities for all international arrivals. From July 2020, most states and territories introduced a fixed charge for quarantine of up to $3220 per adult. The introduction of the fee was rationalised on the basis that Australians had been allowed sufficient time to return and there was a need to recover some of the cost associated with administering the program. Drawing on an empirical study of 58 returned Australian citizens and residents quarantined between March 2020 and January 2021, this paper aims to explore how people experienced paying for hotel quarantine, particularly with respect to fairness and relatedly, the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity requires that the state has an obligation to assist individuals in discharging their duty to comply with public health measures and avoid disproportionate burdens accruing to populations or individuals. Though participants had varying opinions on whether they thought it fair to be charged for their quarantine, for many, the fee constituted a significant burden and source of stress. Given the undertaking of quarantine is primarily for the benefit of the public good, we argue the financial cost imposed on individuals does not meet the demands of reciprocity. It is imperative that future quarantine and isolation arrangements consider seriously the need to minimise burdens of individuals subject to such measures, and that fees do not become a new norm in public health and infectious disease control.</p>","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":"17 1-2","pages":"67-79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11245694/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reciprocity, Fairness and the Financial Burden of Undertaking COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Kari Pahlman, Jane Williams, Diego S Silva, Louis Taffs, Bridget Haire\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/phe/phad027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In late March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia introduced mandatory 14-day supervised quarantine at hotels and other designated facilities for all international arrivals. From July 2020, most states and territories introduced a fixed charge for quarantine of up to $3220 per adult. The introduction of the fee was rationalised on the basis that Australians had been allowed sufficient time to return and there was a need to recover some of the cost associated with administering the program. Drawing on an empirical study of 58 returned Australian citizens and residents quarantined between March 2020 and January 2021, this paper aims to explore how people experienced paying for hotel quarantine, particularly with respect to fairness and relatedly, the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity requires that the state has an obligation to assist individuals in discharging their duty to comply with public health measures and avoid disproportionate burdens accruing to populations or individuals. Though participants had varying opinions on whether they thought it fair to be charged for their quarantine, for many, the fee constituted a significant burden and source of stress. Given the undertaking of quarantine is primarily for the benefit of the public good, we argue the financial cost imposed on individuals does not meet the demands of reciprocity. It is imperative that future quarantine and isolation arrangements consider seriously the need to minimise burdens of individuals subject to such measures, and that fees do not become a new norm in public health and infectious disease control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Ethics\",\"volume\":\"17 1-2\",\"pages\":\"67-79\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11245694/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad027\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为应对 COVID-19 大流行,澳大利亚于 2020 年 3 月下旬开始在酒店和其他指定设施对所有国际入境者实施为期 14 天的强制监督检疫。从 2020 年 7 月起,大多数州和地区开始对每名成人收取高达 3220 澳元的固定检疫费。收费合理化的依据是,澳大利亚人已经有足够的时间回国,而且有必要收回与管理该计划相关的部分成本。本文通过对 2020 年 3 月至 2021 年 1 月期间被隔离的 58 名回国澳大利亚公民和居民进行实证研究,旨在探讨人们如何体验酒店隔离费用,尤其是在公平性和相关的互惠原则方面。互惠原则要求国家有义务协助个人履行遵守公共卫生措施的义务,避免给人群或个人带来过重的负担。尽管与会者对检疫收费是否公平有不同的看法,但对许多人来说,收费是一个沉重的负担,也是压力的来源。鉴于进行检疫主要是为了公共利益,我们认为强加给个人的经济成本并不符合互惠的要求。当务之急是,未来的检疫和隔离安排应认真考虑尽量减轻受此类措施影响的个人负担的必要性,而且收费不应成为公共卫生和传染病控制的新规范。
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
Reciprocity, Fairness and the Financial Burden of Undertaking COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine in Australia.

In late March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia introduced mandatory 14-day supervised quarantine at hotels and other designated facilities for all international arrivals. From July 2020, most states and territories introduced a fixed charge for quarantine of up to $3220 per adult. The introduction of the fee was rationalised on the basis that Australians had been allowed sufficient time to return and there was a need to recover some of the cost associated with administering the program. Drawing on an empirical study of 58 returned Australian citizens and residents quarantined between March 2020 and January 2021, this paper aims to explore how people experienced paying for hotel quarantine, particularly with respect to fairness and relatedly, the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity requires that the state has an obligation to assist individuals in discharging their duty to comply with public health measures and avoid disproportionate burdens accruing to populations or individuals. Though participants had varying opinions on whether they thought it fair to be charged for their quarantine, for many, the fee constituted a significant burden and source of stress. Given the undertaking of quarantine is primarily for the benefit of the public good, we argue the financial cost imposed on individuals does not meet the demands of reciprocity. It is imperative that future quarantine and isolation arrangements consider seriously the need to minimise burdens of individuals subject to such measures, and that fees do not become a new norm in public health and infectious disease control.

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
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.
期刊最新文献
From Self-Management to Shared-Management: A Relational Approach for Equitable Chronic Care The Application of Australian Rights Protections to the Use of Hepatitis C Notification Data to Engage People ‘Lost to Follow Up’ Time to Treat the Climate and Nature Crisis as One Indivisible Global Health Emergency. Psychedelics in PERIL: The Commercial Determinants of Health, Financial Entanglements and Population Health Ethics The Liberalism of Fear and Public Health Ethics
×
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