卫生部门强制接种 COVID-19 疫苗:希腊与美国实例的比较方法。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-15 DOI:10.1007/s10728-024-00502-1
Ioanna Pervou, Panagiotis Mpogiatzidis
{"title":"卫生部门强制接种 COVID-19 疫苗:希腊与美国实例的比较方法。","authors":"Ioanna Pervou, Panagiotis Mpogiatzidis","doi":"10.1007/s10728-024-00502-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A few months after national vaccination campaigns were initiated around early 2021, the discussion regarding the mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers started gaining ground in most European states and also in the United States. The debate on whether healthcare workers should be required to be vaccinated has been fueled by three main reasons: the high transmissibility rate of the Delta variant, which posed a significant risk to national healthcare systems across Europe and the Americas, as well placing high pressure on intensive care units even in the summer months (a); states' inability to impose general lockdowns and social distancing measures during the 2022 winter due to financial hardship and fears of an ongoing recession (b); and governmental unwillingness to implement restrictive measures, having in mind their populations' tiredness from previous lockdowns (c). This paper will explore the legal and managerial implications of mandatory vaccination among healthcare workers and will argue that it has the capacity to be a successful part of effective national healthcare systems in the search for responsible professionals to staff them. It will argue that national vaccination strategies are dependent on states' national healthcare models. It will show how the major difference in healthcare models of the two states chosen as examples have affected their vaccination policies and their reception by healthcare personnel. Finally, it will prove that the advantages of mandatory vaccination for healthcare personnel outweigh prospected disadvantages, irrespective of ethical, or legal justification is applied. This research will go through the key points of the legislative provisions of the two states (a); it will delve into their legal (b) and managerial implications (c); and finally, it will go through the policy questions which arose (d). It will prove how selective mandatory vaccination policies may be applied to national healthcare systems with foundational differences in their conception. Thus, it will demonstrate that selective mandatory vaccination is a viable option both for models approaching health from a societal perspective, and from the liberal ones.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination in the Health Sector: a Comparative Approach Between the Greek and American Examples.\",\"authors\":\"Ioanna Pervou, Panagiotis Mpogiatzidis\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10728-024-00502-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A few months after national vaccination campaigns were initiated around early 2021, the discussion regarding the mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers started gaining ground in most European states and also in the United States. The debate on whether healthcare workers should be required to be vaccinated has been fueled by three main reasons: the high transmissibility rate of the Delta variant, which posed a significant risk to national healthcare systems across Europe and the Americas, as well placing high pressure on intensive care units even in the summer months (a); states' inability to impose general lockdowns and social distancing measures during the 2022 winter due to financial hardship and fears of an ongoing recession (b); and governmental unwillingness to implement restrictive measures, having in mind their populations' tiredness from previous lockdowns (c). This paper will explore the legal and managerial implications of mandatory vaccination among healthcare workers and will argue that it has the capacity to be a successful part of effective national healthcare systems in the search for responsible professionals to staff them. It will argue that national vaccination strategies are dependent on states' national healthcare models. It will show how the major difference in healthcare models of the two states chosen as examples have affected their vaccination policies and their reception by healthcare personnel. Finally, it will prove that the advantages of mandatory vaccination for healthcare personnel outweigh prospected disadvantages, irrespective of ethical, or legal justification is applied. This research will go through the key points of the legislative provisions of the two states (a); it will delve into their legal (b) and managerial implications (c); and finally, it will go through the policy questions which arose (d). It will prove how selective mandatory vaccination policies may be applied to national healthcare systems with foundational differences in their conception. Thus, it will demonstrate that selective mandatory vaccination is a viable option both for models approaching health from a societal perspective, and from the liberal ones.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-024-00502-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-024-00502-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2021年初前后启动全国疫苗接种运动几个月后,关于卫生保健工作者强制接种疫苗的讨论开始在大多数欧洲国家和美国取得进展。关于是否应该要求卫生保健工作者接种疫苗的辩论主要有三个原因:德尔塔病毒变体的高传播率,对整个欧洲和美洲的国家卫生保健系统构成了重大风险,并且即使在夏季也给重症监护病房带来了巨大压力(a);由于财政困难和对持续衰退的担忧,各国无法在2022年冬季实施全面封锁和保持社会距离措施(b);政府不愿意实施限制性措施,考虑到他们的人口从以前的封锁中感到疲倦(c)。本文将探讨在卫生保健工作者中强制接种疫苗的法律和管理含义,并将认为它有能力成为有效的国家卫生保健系统中寻找负责任的专业人员的成功组成部分。它将争辩说,国家疫苗接种战略取决于各州的国家卫生保健模式。它将展示作为例子的两个州的保健模式的主要差异如何影响了它们的疫苗接种政策和保健人员对疫苗的接受。最后,它将证明,强制接种疫苗的卫生保健人员的优点大于预期的缺点,无论伦理或法律理由适用。本研究将梳理两州立法规定的重点(a);它将深入研究其法律(b)和管理影响(c);最后,它将通过出现的政策问题(d)。它将证明如何选择性强制性疫苗接种政策可以应用于国家卫生保健系统的基本概念的差异。因此,它将证明,无论是从社会角度还是从自由角度来看,选择性强制接种疫苗都是一种可行的选择。
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
Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination in the Health Sector: a Comparative Approach Between the Greek and American Examples.

A few months after national vaccination campaigns were initiated around early 2021, the discussion regarding the mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers started gaining ground in most European states and also in the United States. The debate on whether healthcare workers should be required to be vaccinated has been fueled by three main reasons: the high transmissibility rate of the Delta variant, which posed a significant risk to national healthcare systems across Europe and the Americas, as well placing high pressure on intensive care units even in the summer months (a); states' inability to impose general lockdowns and social distancing measures during the 2022 winter due to financial hardship and fears of an ongoing recession (b); and governmental unwillingness to implement restrictive measures, having in mind their populations' tiredness from previous lockdowns (c). This paper will explore the legal and managerial implications of mandatory vaccination among healthcare workers and will argue that it has the capacity to be a successful part of effective national healthcare systems in the search for responsible professionals to staff them. It will argue that national vaccination strategies are dependent on states' national healthcare models. It will show how the major difference in healthcare models of the two states chosen as examples have affected their vaccination policies and their reception by healthcare personnel. Finally, it will prove that the advantages of mandatory vaccination for healthcare personnel outweigh prospected disadvantages, irrespective of ethical, or legal justification is applied. This research will go through the key points of the legislative provisions of the two states (a); it will delve into their legal (b) and managerial implications (c); and finally, it will go through the policy questions which arose (d). It will prove how selective mandatory vaccination policies may be applied to national healthcare systems with foundational differences in their conception. Thus, it will demonstrate that selective mandatory vaccination is a viable option both for models approaching health from a societal perspective, and from the liberal ones.

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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
期刊最新文献
Immigration Policy as a Social Determinant of Health among Brazilian Immigrants in the United States: A Narrative Review. Physician Burnout: The Making of a Crisis. Do Doctors Have a Responsibility to Challenge the Distorting Influence of Commerce on Healthcare Delivery? The Case of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination in the Health Sector: a Comparative Approach Between the Greek and American Examples. Prudent Physician Anger in Patient-Physician Interactions.
×
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