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.
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).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献