公共卫生重点确定:在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间优先考虑福祉较差者的案例

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Etikk I Praksis Pub Date : 2021-12-02 DOI:10.5324/eip.v15i2.4097
S. A. Horn, Mathias Barra, O. Norheim, C. Solberg
{"title":"公共卫生重点确定:在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间优先考虑福祉较差者的案例","authors":"S. A. Horn, Mathias Barra, O. Norheim, C. Solberg","doi":"10.5324/eip.v15i2.4097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Norway, priority for health interventions is assigned on the basis of three official criteria: health benefit, resources, and severity. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly happened through intersectoral public health efforts such as lockdowns, quarantines, information campaigns, social distancing and, more recently, vaccine distribution. The aim of this article is to evaluate potential priority setting criteria for public health interventions. We argue in favour of the following three criteria for public health priority setting: benefit, resources and improving the well-being of the worse off. We argue that benefits and priority to the worse off may reasonably be understood in terms of individual well-being, rather than only health, for public health priority setting. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic support our conclusions.\nKeywords: COVID-19, Prioritarianism, Priority Setting, Public Health, Severity","PeriodicalId":42362,"journal":{"name":"Etikk I Praksis","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public health priority setting: A case for priority to the worse off in well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"S. A. Horn, Mathias Barra, O. Norheim, C. Solberg\",\"doi\":\"10.5324/eip.v15i2.4097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Norway, priority for health interventions is assigned on the basis of three official criteria: health benefit, resources, and severity. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly happened through intersectoral public health efforts such as lockdowns, quarantines, information campaigns, social distancing and, more recently, vaccine distribution. The aim of this article is to evaluate potential priority setting criteria for public health interventions. We argue in favour of the following three criteria for public health priority setting: benefit, resources and improving the well-being of the worse off. We argue that benefits and priority to the worse off may reasonably be understood in terms of individual well-being, rather than only health, for public health priority setting. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic support our conclusions.\\nKeywords: COVID-19, Prioritarianism, Priority Setting, Public Health, Severity\",\"PeriodicalId\":42362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Etikk I Praksis\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Etikk I Praksis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v15i2.4097\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etikk I Praksis","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v15i2.4097","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在挪威,保健干预措施的优先次序是根据三项官方标准确定的:保健效益、资源和严重程度。对COVID-19大流行的应对措施主要是通过部门间公共卫生努力,如封锁、隔离、宣传运动、保持社交距离以及最近的疫苗分发。本文的目的是评估公共卫生干预措施的潜在优先制定标准。我们主张在确定公共卫生优先事项时采用以下三个标准:效益、资源和改善处境较差者的福祉。我们认为,对于公共卫生优先事项的设定,可以合理地从个人福祉而不仅仅是健康的角度来理解穷人的利益和优先事项。我们认为,2019冠状病毒病大流行的教训支持了我们的结论。关键词:COVID-19,优先主义,优先设置,公共卫生,严重程度
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
Public health priority setting: A case for priority to the worse off in well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic
In Norway, priority for health interventions is assigned on the basis of three official criteria: health benefit, resources, and severity. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly happened through intersectoral public health efforts such as lockdowns, quarantines, information campaigns, social distancing and, more recently, vaccine distribution. The aim of this article is to evaluate potential priority setting criteria for public health interventions. We argue in favour of the following three criteria for public health priority setting: benefit, resources and improving the well-being of the worse off. We argue that benefits and priority to the worse off may reasonably be understood in terms of individual well-being, rather than only health, for public health priority setting. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic support our conclusions. Keywords: COVID-19, Prioritarianism, Priority Setting, Public Health, Severity
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
Etikk I Praksis
Etikk I Praksis Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ethical challenges of social work in Spain during COVID-19 LGBTIQ+ prioritization in refugee admissions – The case of Norway Stakeholder Inclusion as the Research Council of Norway’s Silver Bullet Moral sensitivity, moral distress and moral functioning Nazism, Genocide and the Threat of The Global West. Russian Moral Justification of War in Ukraine
×
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