Ethics and Health Security in the Australian COVID-19 Context: A Critical Interpretive Literature Review

Author:

Fehross Anson,Pahlman Kari,Silva Diego S.ORCID

Abstract

AbstractBackground The concept of “health security” is often used to motivate public health responses, yet the ethical values that underpin this concept remain largely unexamined. The recent Australian responses to COVID-19 serve as an important case study by which we can analyse the pre-existing literature to see what ethical values shaped, and continue to shape, Australia’s response. Methods We conducted a critical interpretive literature review of academic and grey literatures within key databases, resulting in 2,220 sources. After screening for duplicates and relevance, we analysed ninety-six sources. Results First, risk and uncertainty are a leading focus, with a heavy concentration on risks to life and health. Second, free movement, safety, and security were recurringly emphasized, albeit narrowly focused upon the safety of the population. Third, legitimacy was a recurring theme, and it is here that discussions of “health security” figured highly. Conclusion Discussions of harm from government and associated official bodies fail to adequately distinguish between various senses of harm. Moreover, while the literature often discusses the balancing of rights, the steps involved in the weighing of these rights is rarely adequately explained and defended. We suggest that decision-makers should endeavour to clearly identify and defend the values undergirding their decisions in the public sphere.

Funder

University of Sydney

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Health (social science)

Reference141 articles.

1. Aldis, W. 2008. Health security as a public health concept: A critical analysis. Health Policy and Planning 23(6): 369–375.

2. Andrews, K. 2021. Interview with Liam Bartlett. 6PR Mornings, transcript of radio interview, April 26. https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/KarenAndrews/Pages/6pr-mornings-26042021.aspx (accessed September 8, 2023).

3. Austin, J. 1971. A plea for excuses. In Philosophy and linguistics, edited by C. Lyas, 79–101. Controversies in philosophy series. London: MacMillan and Co.

4. Australian Government. 2006. International Health Regulations (2005) (Geneva 23 May 2005) [2006] ATNIF 12. [National interest analysis and other documents tabled on August 8). https://henley.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/nia/2006/27.html (accessed September 8, 2023).

5. Australian House of Representatives. 2008a. Hansard: Parliamentary Debates. May 29, 2008. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/2008-05-29/toc_pdf/5872-3.pdf (accessed September 8, 2023).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3