第五章。COVID-19大流行对俄罗斯临床医学伦理范式演变的影响(“战争与战争”)。

Е A Pyatenko, S V Krylova, N N Krylov
{"title":"第五章。COVID-19大流行对俄罗斯临床医学伦理范式演变的影响(“战争与战争”)。","authors":"Е A Pyatenko,&nbsp;S V Krylova,&nbsp;N N Krylov","doi":"10.3917/jibes.341.0075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The C&#1054;VID-19 pandemic became a catalyst for the transformation of the ideas of the existence of global ethics in favor of real moral pluralism, exposed the problem of abandoning the principles of personalized medicine in favor of public health ethics (collective ethics of civil society). The authors sequentially analyze the objective factors that influenced the change in the moral paradigm of the clinical medicine in Russia: the peculiarities of the course of infection, the lack of resources in the health-care sector, the inability to use advanced treatment methods in different groups of patients, the protection of medical workers, the provision of emergency and planned surgical interventions, and the prevention of further spread of infection. In addition, the moral consequences of the use of administrative measures to limit the spread of the pandemic are given: restriction of social contacts, the use of personal protective equipment, retraining of specialists, re-profiling of the bed fund, leveling problems of communication with colleagues, patients and students. Special attention is paid to the problem of &#8220;anti-vaxxers&#8221;, representing a significant part of society and hindering the implementation of the vaccination program of the population. We believe that active and passive protest against vaccinations lie not in a rational plane, but in an emotional one, in an immanent distrust of the state and its institutions. Thus arises a secondary ethical problem of the state&#8217;s responsibility for the life and health of every citizen, regardless of their beliefs. Contradictions in the moral principles of individual strata of the population (including groups like those who agree to get vaccinated, those who doubt, the indifferent ones, &#8220;active anti-vaccinators&#8221;) currently seem irreconcilable due to the state&#8217;s detachment from solving moral problems.Ethic divergence in the context of the pandemic has become real, stable and difficult to overcome, while the claims of a single, global, global bioethics are being questioned. The COVID-19 pandemic has formulated the ethical task of the 21st century, which will have to be the development of public policy and practice of clinical medicine in the context of serious moral contradictions and significant bioethical differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":73577,"journal":{"name":"Journal international de bioethique et d'ethique des sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chapitre 5. L’impact de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur l’évolution du paradigme éthique de la médecine clinique en Russie (« à la guerre comme à la guerre »).\",\"authors\":\"Е A Pyatenko,&nbsp;S V Krylova,&nbsp;N N Krylov\",\"doi\":\"10.3917/jibes.341.0075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The C&#1054;VID-19 pandemic became a catalyst for the transformation of the ideas of the existence of global ethics in favor of real moral pluralism, exposed the problem of abandoning the principles of personalized medicine in favor of public health ethics (collective ethics of civil society). The authors sequentially analyze the objective factors that influenced the change in the moral paradigm of the clinical medicine in Russia: the peculiarities of the course of infection, the lack of resources in the health-care sector, the inability to use advanced treatment methods in different groups of patients, the protection of medical workers, the provision of emergency and planned surgical interventions, and the prevention of further spread of infection. In addition, the moral consequences of the use of administrative measures to limit the spread of the pandemic are given: restriction of social contacts, the use of personal protective equipment, retraining of specialists, re-profiling of the bed fund, leveling problems of communication with colleagues, patients and students. Special attention is paid to the problem of &#8220;anti-vaxxers&#8221;, representing a significant part of society and hindering the implementation of the vaccination program of the population. We believe that active and passive protest against vaccinations lie not in a rational plane, but in an emotional one, in an immanent distrust of the state and its institutions. Thus arises a secondary ethical problem of the state&#8217;s responsibility for the life and health of every citizen, regardless of their beliefs. Contradictions in the moral principles of individual strata of the population (including groups like those who agree to get vaccinated, those who doubt, the indifferent ones, &#8220;active anti-vaccinators&#8221;) currently seem irreconcilable due to the state&#8217;s detachment from solving moral problems.Ethic divergence in the context of the pandemic has become real, stable and difficult to overcome, while the claims of a single, global, global bioethics are being questioned. The COVID-19 pandemic has formulated the ethical task of the 21st century, which will have to be the development of public policy and practice of clinical medicine in the context of serious moral contradictions and significant bioethical differences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal international de bioethique et d'ethique des sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal international de bioethique et d'ethique des sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3917/jibes.341.0075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal international de bioethique et d'ethique des sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/jibes.341.0075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

covid -19大流行成为一种催化剂,促进了全球伦理存在观念的转变,有利于真正的道德多元化,暴露了为了公共卫生伦理(公民社会的集体伦理)而放弃个性化医疗原则的问题。作者依次分析了影响俄罗斯临床医学道德范式变化的客观因素:感染过程的特殊性、保健部门缺乏资源、无法在不同的患者群体中使用先进的治疗方法、对医务工作者的保护、提供紧急和有计划的手术干预以及预防感染的进一步传播。此外,还列举了采取行政措施限制大流行病传播的道德后果:限制社会接触、使用个人防护装备、对专家进行再培训、重新编制床位基金、解决与同事、病人和学生之间的沟通问题。对反疫苗者问题给予了特别关注,他们代表了社会的很大一部分,阻碍了人口疫苗接种计划的实施。我们认为,对疫苗接种的积极和消极的抗议不存在于理性层面,而存在于情感层面,存在于对国家及其机构的内在不信任。由此产生了一个次要的伦理问题,即国家对每个公民的生命和健康负有责任,而不管其信仰如何。由于国家对解决道德问题的超然态度,各个人口阶层(包括同意接种疫苗的人、持怀疑态度的人、漠不关心的人、积极反对接种疫苗的人等群体)的道德原则矛盾目前似乎不可调和。大流行病背景下的伦理分歧已成为现实、稳定和难以克服的问题,而单一、全球、全球生物伦理的主张正在受到质疑。COVID-19大流行已经制定了21世纪的伦理任务,这将是在严重的道德矛盾和重大的生物伦理差异的背景下制定公共政策和临床医学实践。
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
Chapitre 5. L’impact de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur l’évolution du paradigme éthique de la médecine clinique en Russie (« à la guerre comme à la guerre »).

The CОVID-19 pandemic became a catalyst for the transformation of the ideas of the existence of global ethics in favor of real moral pluralism, exposed the problem of abandoning the principles of personalized medicine in favor of public health ethics (collective ethics of civil society). The authors sequentially analyze the objective factors that influenced the change in the moral paradigm of the clinical medicine in Russia: the peculiarities of the course of infection, the lack of resources in the health-care sector, the inability to use advanced treatment methods in different groups of patients, the protection of medical workers, the provision of emergency and planned surgical interventions, and the prevention of further spread of infection. In addition, the moral consequences of the use of administrative measures to limit the spread of the pandemic are given: restriction of social contacts, the use of personal protective equipment, retraining of specialists, re-profiling of the bed fund, leveling problems of communication with colleagues, patients and students. Special attention is paid to the problem of “anti-vaxxers”, representing a significant part of society and hindering the implementation of the vaccination program of the population. We believe that active and passive protest against vaccinations lie not in a rational plane, but in an emotional one, in an immanent distrust of the state and its institutions. Thus arises a secondary ethical problem of the state’s responsibility for the life and health of every citizen, regardless of their beliefs. Contradictions in the moral principles of individual strata of the population (including groups like those who agree to get vaccinated, those who doubt, the indifferent ones, “active anti-vaccinators”) currently seem irreconcilable due to the state’s detachment from solving moral problems.Ethic divergence in the context of the pandemic has become real, stable and difficult to overcome, while the claims of a single, global, global bioethics are being questioned. The COVID-19 pandemic has formulated the ethical task of the 21st century, which will have to be the development of public policy and practice of clinical medicine in the context of serious moral contradictions and significant bioethical differences.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
C. Castets-Renard, J. Eynard, Un droit de l’intelligence artificielle, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2023. Centre de recherche de l’Académie militaire de Saint-Cyr Coëtquidan et la Croix-Rouge française, Les enjeux de l’autonomie des systèmes d’armes létaux, Pédone, Paris, 2022. Chapitre 1. Essais cliniques et bioéthique en Inde. Chapitre 2. L’autonomisation des comités nationaux d’éthique de la recherche en Afrique : perspective historique et enjeux actuels. Chapitre 3. Inégalités dans le dépistage et la prévention du VIH/SIDA.
×
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