"我认为我们所有人都应该接受[......]更好的伦理培训"。COVID-19 大流行期间政策制定中的伦理挑战:对瑞士决策者和科学家的访谈研究结果。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01132-x
Caroline Brall, Felix Gille, Caroline Schlaufer, Rouven Porz, Ralf J Jox
{"title":"\"我认为我们所有人都应该接受[......]更好的伦理培训\"。COVID-19 大流行期间政策制定中的伦理挑战:对瑞士决策者和科学家的访谈研究结果。","authors":"Caroline Brall, Felix Gille, Caroline Schlaufer, Rouven Porz, Ralf J Jox","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01132-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic posed many unprecedented challenges to health care systems and public health efforts worldwide. Policy making and science were deeply intertwined, in particular with regard to the justification of health policy measures. In this context, ethical considerations were often at the core of decision-making trade-offs. However, not much is known about the actual ethical challenges encountered by policy makers and scientists involved in policy advice. With this study, we therefore aim to explore the ethical challenges during COVID-19-related political decision-making in Switzerland as perceived by policy makers and scientists involved in policy making. We also explore the role ethics advice had during the pandemic response and what can be learned for future public health crises.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted thirteen qualitative expert interviews with policy makers and scientists involved in decision-making on COVID-19 policy responses in Switzerland on the regional and national level. We used inductive content analysis to analyse the interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the multitude of ethical challenges highlighted, interviewees perceived making trade-offs between the common good vs. the individual good and between economic welfare vs. health of the population, as well as proportionality of the policy measures, and the capacity of the public to accept uncertainty as central. Interviewees had diverging opinions on whether ethical considerations were sufficiently raised and discussed on the Swiss policy level during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the reasons why ethics was not sufficiently discussed, they mentioned a lack of time in the fast-paced dynamic of the pandemic, ethics as a complex subject area, the interconnectedness between ethics and law, too much focus on few topics (mostly on vaccination-related ethical questions), and power relationships, such as dominance of medical professionals over ethicists. They evaluated ethics support to have been adequately present in the decision-making process, but wished for ethics training, involvement of the public in the discourse and for accompanying communication to build trust among the population for the future.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study provides empirical insights into the ethical considerations of COVID-19 policy making in practice in Switzerland. It can help to develop ethics assistance for future crises and inform ethical health policy and decision-making not only in Switzerland, but also in other countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"129"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566081/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"I think all of us should have […] much better training in ethics.\\\" Ethical challenges in policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from an interview study with Swiss policy makers and scientists.\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Brall, Felix Gille, Caroline Schlaufer, Rouven Porz, Ralf J Jox\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-024-01132-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic posed many unprecedented challenges to health care systems and public health efforts worldwide. Policy making and science were deeply intertwined, in particular with regard to the justification of health policy measures. In this context, ethical considerations were often at the core of decision-making trade-offs. However, not much is known about the actual ethical challenges encountered by policy makers and scientists involved in policy advice. With this study, we therefore aim to explore the ethical challenges during COVID-19-related political decision-making in Switzerland as perceived by policy makers and scientists involved in policy making. We also explore the role ethics advice had during the pandemic response and what can be learned for future public health crises.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted thirteen qualitative expert interviews with policy makers and scientists involved in decision-making on COVID-19 policy responses in Switzerland on the regional and national level. We used inductive content analysis to analyse the interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the multitude of ethical challenges highlighted, interviewees perceived making trade-offs between the common good vs. the individual good and between economic welfare vs. health of the population, as well as proportionality of the policy measures, and the capacity of the public to accept uncertainty as central. Interviewees had diverging opinions on whether ethical considerations were sufficiently raised and discussed on the Swiss policy level during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the reasons why ethics was not sufficiently discussed, they mentioned a lack of time in the fast-paced dynamic of the pandemic, ethics as a complex subject area, the interconnectedness between ethics and law, too much focus on few topics (mostly on vaccination-related ethical questions), and power relationships, such as dominance of medical professionals over ethicists. They evaluated ethics support to have been adequately present in the decision-making process, but wished for ethics training, involvement of the public in the discourse and for accompanying communication to build trust among the population for the future.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study provides empirical insights into the ethical considerations of COVID-19 policy making in practice in Switzerland. It can help to develop ethics assistance for future crises and inform ethical health policy and decision-making not only in Switzerland, but also in other countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"129\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566081/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01132-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01132-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:COVID-19 大流行给全世界的医疗保健系统和公共卫生工作带来了许多前所未有的挑战。政策制定和科学深深地交织在一起,特别是在卫生政策措施的合理性方面。在这种情况下,伦理因素往往是决策权衡的核心。然而,对于政策制定者和参与政策建议的科学家所遇到的实际伦理挑战却知之甚少。因此,本研究旨在探讨参与决策的政策制定者和科学家在瑞士进行 COVID-19 相关政治决策时遇到的伦理挑战。我们还探讨了伦理建议在应对大流行病过程中的作用,以及在未来公共卫生危机中可以借鉴的经验:我们在瑞士地区和国家层面对参与 COVID-19 政策应对决策的决策者和科学家进行了 13 次定性专家访谈。我们采用归纳式内容分析法对访谈进行了分析:结果:在所强调的众多伦理挑战中,受访者认为在共同利益与个人利益之间、经济福利与人口健康之间进行权衡,以及政策措施的相称性和公众接受不确定性的能力是核心问题。受访者对于在 COVID-19 大流行期间瑞士政策层面是否充分提出并讨论了伦理方面的考 虑意见不一。在没有充分讨论伦理问题的原因中,他们提到了在大流行病的快节奏动态中缺乏时间、伦理是一个复杂的主题领域、伦理与法律之间的相互联系、过多关注少数几个主题(主要是与疫苗接种相关的伦理问题)以及权力关系,如医疗专业人员对伦理学家的主导地位。他们认为伦理支持在决策过程中得到了充分体现,但希望开展伦理培训,让公众参与讨论,并同时进行沟通,以便在民众中建立对未来的信任:本研究为瑞士 COVID-19 政策制定过程中的伦理考虑提供了经验性见解。它有助于为未来的危机提供伦理援助,并为瑞士和其他国家的伦理卫生政策和决策提供信息。
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
"I think all of us should have […] much better training in ethics." Ethical challenges in policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from an interview study with Swiss policy makers and scientists.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic posed many unprecedented challenges to health care systems and public health efforts worldwide. Policy making and science were deeply intertwined, in particular with regard to the justification of health policy measures. In this context, ethical considerations were often at the core of decision-making trade-offs. However, not much is known about the actual ethical challenges encountered by policy makers and scientists involved in policy advice. With this study, we therefore aim to explore the ethical challenges during COVID-19-related political decision-making in Switzerland as perceived by policy makers and scientists involved in policy making. We also explore the role ethics advice had during the pandemic response and what can be learned for future public health crises.

Methods: We conducted thirteen qualitative expert interviews with policy makers and scientists involved in decision-making on COVID-19 policy responses in Switzerland on the regional and national level. We used inductive content analysis to analyse the interviews.

Results: Among the multitude of ethical challenges highlighted, interviewees perceived making trade-offs between the common good vs. the individual good and between economic welfare vs. health of the population, as well as proportionality of the policy measures, and the capacity of the public to accept uncertainty as central. Interviewees had diverging opinions on whether ethical considerations were sufficiently raised and discussed on the Swiss policy level during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the reasons why ethics was not sufficiently discussed, they mentioned a lack of time in the fast-paced dynamic of the pandemic, ethics as a complex subject area, the interconnectedness between ethics and law, too much focus on few topics (mostly on vaccination-related ethical questions), and power relationships, such as dominance of medical professionals over ethicists. They evaluated ethics support to have been adequately present in the decision-making process, but wished for ethics training, involvement of the public in the discourse and for accompanying communication to build trust among the population for the future.

Conclusions: The study provides empirical insights into the ethical considerations of COVID-19 policy making in practice in Switzerland. It can help to develop ethics assistance for future crises and inform ethical health policy and decision-making not only in Switzerland, but also in other countries.

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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
期刊最新文献
A case study of Muslims' perspectives of expanded terminal sedation:addressing the elephant in the room. Ethical issues in vaccine trial participation by adolescents: qualitative insights on family decision making from a human papillomavirus vaccine trial in Tanzania. Scoping review and thematic analysis of informed consent in humanitarian emergencies. Healthcare workers' opinions on non-medical criteria for prioritisation of access to care during the pandemic. "I think all of us should have […] much better training in ethics." Ethical challenges in policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from an interview study with Swiss policy makers and scientists.
×
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