Disaster construction and reconstruction : lessons from Covid-19 for ethics, politics and law
Disaster construction and reconstruction : lessons from Covid-19 for ethics, politics and law
Contributor(s): Dónal O’Mathún (Editor), Veselin L. Mitrović (Editor)
Subject(s): Politics, Social Sciences, Sociology, Health and medicine and law
Published by: Институт друштвених наука
Keywords: COVID-19; pandemic; disaster ethics; public health governance; human rights; bioethics; vaccination debates
Summary/Abstract: The volume DISASTER CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION: LESSONS FROM COVID-19 FOR ETHICS, POLITICS AND LAW has at least two general aims. One of the aims of this volume has been to reduce the disaster risks by dealing with the post-disaster recovery through chapters which examine the pandemic consequences, either through the most appropriate ethical accounts, or new recommendations. Specific protocols have even been developed for dealing with the pandemic. This knowledge should be used in future disasters. Considering resilience among the marginal, challenge trials, debates on mandatory vs. compulsory vaccination, vaccine hesitancy and rejection, human security and rights, and political and social polarisations this volume offers fresh insights into the ethical approaches which could or should be applied in a next pandemic. The second aim has been to address different crises which could be triggered by pandemics: crises in the health care, social, political, economic, and other systems. Pandemics can also lead to psychological and other, more personal, crises. The recent pandemic brought a globally accepted narrative that after this pandemic, nothing would be the same. In economic, political, and social terms, the world became different. This volume brings one perspective on these changes.
- Print-ISBN-13: 978-86-7093-271-5
- Page Count: 245
- Publication Year: 2024
- Language: English
A SCOPING REVIEW OF ETHICAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES
A SCOPING REVIEW OF ETHICAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES
(A SCOPING REVIEW OF ETHICAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES)
- Author(s):Zia Haider, Annie Silleck, Dónal O’Mathúna
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Social Sciences, Sociology, Health and medicine and law
- Page Range:26-55
- No. of Pages:30
- Keywords:COVID-19 vaccines; vaccine mandates; ethics; herd immunity; public good
- Summary/Abstract:Vaccines are important public health interventions to prevent diseases and counteract pandemics. The development of COVID-19 vaccines during the most intense and devastating period of the COVID-19 pandemic was a remarkable scientific achievement. Yet the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines raised challenging public health and ethical questions about how these would be made available. The morbidity and mortality when the vaccines first became available suggested that COVID-19 vaccine mandates should be introduced to achieve maximal vaccination rates. Ethical arguments were raised in support of such mandates, and other ethical arguments were presented to oppose such mandates. We undertook a scoping review to identify and summarize the main ethical arguments used for and against mandating COVID-19 vaccines. Eligible articles were published in English between January 2020 and 25 September 2021. We extracted the ethical issues and analyzed them to develop themes and subthemes. The main ethical arguments for and against COVID-19 vaccines are summarized here.
ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND HESITANCY ASSOCIATED WITH (MANDATORY) VACCINATION AGAINST COVID-19
ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND HESITANCY ASSOCIATED WITH (MANDATORY) VACCINATION AGAINST COVID-19
(ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND HESITANCY ASSOCIATED WITH (MANDATORY) VACCINATION AGAINST COVID-19)
- Author(s):Miroslav Radenković
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Social Sciences
- Page Range:56-72
- No. of Pages:17
- Keywords:COVID-19; ethical challenges; mandatory vaccination; vaccination hesitancy
- Summary/Abstract:The World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted vaccination hesitancy as one of the top 10 hazards to world health in 2019, despite the fact that it has been widely known that the vaccine is an essential preventative measure to shield the vaccinated person from serious illness and death. Soon after, in March 2020, the WHO classified COVID-19 as a pandemic and strongly advised that the global populace be shielded from the further spread of SARS-CoV-2 through fundamental preventive measures as well as through widespread vaccination, even if it were mandatory for some populations. Mandatory vaccination could be viewed as a method of increasing compliance to vaccination agendas, and in the case of COVID-19, it was deemed ethically justified if the threat to public health was serious, population confidence in its efficacy and safety was high, the anticipated utility was superior to alternatives, but also if the penalties for noncompliance were balanced. Unfortunately, it was discovered that in certain cases, unsubstantiated data and medically misconstrued information on vaccine efficacy, duration of protection, and probable adverse effects, were the most important reasons for the COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. Taking into consideration previous experiences with COVID-19, further analysis of (mandatory) vaccination hesitancy is still more than required, with the comprehensive consideration of basic ethical principles that might give us some rational future directions in this highly sensitive issue.
RESEARCH ETHICS ISSUES IN BASIC AND CLINICAL STUDIES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMICS
RESEARCH ETHICS ISSUES IN BASIC AND CLINICAL STUDIES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMICS
(RESEARCH ETHICS ISSUES IN BASIC AND CLINICAL STUDIES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMICS)
- Author(s):Zoran Todorović, Dragan Hrnčić
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics, Sociology, Welfare systems, Health and medicine and law, Family and social welfare, Welfare services
- Page Range:74-92
- No. of Pages:19
- Keywords:COVID-19; research ethics; moral responsibility; experimental drug use; public health
- Summary/Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic has opened many issues concerning research ethics. Initially, the focus of the investigation was directed at the origin of the virus, opening the question of moral and other responsibility for the emergence of the pandemic. The safety of medicines and vaccines has become a question for experts and the general public, and ongoing clinical trials have not removed distrust. The standards for conducting clinical trials of drugs in development were relaxed, even according to the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency, which created doubts about the balance between their reliability and speed of their implementation. Redefining bioethical principles in public health research proved necessary, and easing measures against COVID-19 only softened the public debate, but still needs to resolve some research ethics issues. Conducting both basic and clinical studies unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic was also affected during this period, facing a lack of funding, changes in infrastructure and resources, and a sudden need to refocus the research. Discussions on ethical issues related to allocating available resources and the urgent need to terminate some ongoing research studies should be addressed in contemporary literature. On the other hand, the demand for rapid knowledge production to secure prompt reactions from various health system stakeholders resulted in the flexibility of the peer-review process. That opened some ethical issues related to responsible publication practice, emphasizing the role of research ethics at every single step of the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 biomedical, basic, and clinical studies.
DETECTING RESILIENCE ISSUES AMONG MARGINAL GROUPS AS A BIOETHICAL GOAL
DETECTING RESILIENCE ISSUES AMONG MARGINAL GROUPS AS A BIOETHICAL GOAL
(DETECTING RESILIENCE ISSUES AMONG MARGINAL GROUPS AS A BIOETHICAL GOAL)
- Author(s):Veselin Mitrović
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Social Sciences, Sociology, Ethnic Minorities Studies
- Page Range:94-111
- No. of Pages:18
- Keywords:Bioethics; Resilience; Vulnerability; COVID-19; Racism; Discrimination
- Summary/Abstract:Bioethical judgments specifically impact actual medical and political practice, which, in turn, impacts the living conditions of marginalized groups. In this article, we analyze the Resilience of marginalized social groups in two ways: 1) through a normative aspect of Bioethics concerning moral judgments and their justification and 2) through an empirical aspect concerning the actual living conditions and changes of marginalized groups. We hypothesize that Resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic is not closely related to pre-existing medical issues of a group. Alternatively, structurally deep-rooted racial, social, and economic conditions significantly reduce a group’s resilience. The main concern is converting the miserable survival of the most endangered, marginalized, and discriminated groups into an acceptable one. However, the recent pandemic of COVID-19 put even more pressure on vulnerable groups, thus weakening their Resilience even more. In five sections, we will first show what it means to be marginal before the pandemic. Secondly, how racism and discrimination lower the resilience of marginal groups, i.e., making them even more vulnerable in case of a disaster and endangering their survival in the mid and long terms. Consequently, we assume that the general request for the normalization of the everyday lives of the majority makes COVID-19 an ongoing disaster, i.e., a longstanding crisis for discriminated and marginal groups. Avoiding such an outcome is in the holistic picture that many bioethicists and clinicians must accept.
RETHINKING HUMAN SECURITY IN THE POST-COVID-19 WORLD – LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE HUMAN-CENTRIC APPROACH TO HEALTH SECURITY
RETHINKING HUMAN SECURITY IN THE POST-COVID-19 WORLD – LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE HUMAN-CENTRIC APPROACH TO HEALTH SECURITY
(RETHINKING HUMAN SECURITY IN THE POST-COVID-19 WORLD – LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE HUMAN-CENTRIC APPROACH TO HEALTH SECURITY)
- Author(s):Slađana Ćurčić
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Politics, Social Sciences, Sociology, Security and defense, Health and medicine and law
- Page Range:112-131
- No. of Pages:20
- Keywords:COVID-19; human security; health security; “post-COVID-19 world”
- Summary/Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic is an example of the health-security nexus, as a topic of increasing importance in security studies. Speaking broadly, this perspective is close to the political construction of the health threats, but depends on the approach to health security we take. Specifically, the aim of this paper is to analyze COVID-19 as a health threat through the human- centric approach to health security and to consider the relevance of this approach in the “post-COVID-19 context”. The research question is: what is the special value of this approach in the conceptualization of COVID-19 and future health security threats, both in terms of theoretical contribution and strategic and policy solutions? The paper is based on an academic literature review, and secondary data analysis relevant to the assessment of the state of human security, like the Human Development Index. The paper is structured as follows: in the introductory part, academic perspectives on health security are presented. Then, through the seven dimensions of the human security concept, it is analyzed how COVID-19 threatened human security. The next part considers the characteristics of a human-centric approach to health security in the COVID-19 context. Finally, the theoretical and practical implications of the human security analysis of COVID-19 and its importance for the health security field, are discussed. It is concluded that rethinking the human security concept in the post-COVID-19 context could contribute both to clarifying the human-centered approach to health security and redefining the concept of health security itself.
Constructivism in Times of Political Crisis
Constructivism in Times of Political Crisis
(Constructivism in Times of Political Crisis)
- Author(s):Michael Buckley
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Philosophy, Social Sciences
- Page Range:134-151
- No. of Pages:18
- Summary/Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how deeply engrained in the functionality of societies human-induced risks have become. Political philosophers can no longer treat these hazards as improbable threats too far removed from everyday life to properly count as basic questions of justice and stability. Reimagining the liberal tradition to account for these risks will require a concept of social resilience to fortify existing conceptions of social stability. This paper argues that a leading account of stability – an overlapping consensus – is not resilient under stress. It explains how human-induced hazards contribute to a process of pernicious polarization, and how pernicious polarization illuminates a process by which consensus breaks down and begins to reverse itself. A complete account of what must transpire for a society to absorb, withstand, anticipate, or recover from this destabilizing process outstrips the conceptual resources contained with an overlapping consensus, rendering it vulnerable to the human-induced threats we can expect to encounter for years to come.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND ETHICS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: THE EXPERIENCES OF BRAZIL AND ISRAEL
HUMAN RIGHTS AND ETHICS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: THE EXPERIENCES OF BRAZIL AND ISRAEL
(HUMAN RIGHTS AND ETHICS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: THE EXPERIENCES OF BRAZIL AND ISRAEL)
- Author(s):Karen da Costa, Shlomit Zuckerman
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Politics, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Security and defense, Geopolitics
- Page Range:152-169
- No. of Pages:18
- Keywords:Human rights; Ethics; COVID-19; Brazil; Israel
- Summary/Abstract:This paper examines Brazil and Israel’s responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on human rights and ethical issues. Through documental analysis, utilizing primary sources such as official reports and regulations, as well as secondary sources, especially academic literature, the research explores how these nations addressed the pandemic with respect to human rights and ethical conduct. In Brazil, a convergence of health emergencies and governance crises contributed to a heightened death toll, emphasizing the need to learn from past mistakes, enhance healthcare systems, and eliminate discriminatory policies against vulnerable groups. The shift in rhetoric under President Lula’s new government since January 2023 reflects a more human rights-friendly approach, prioritizing dialogue and incorporating lessons from the pandemic. In contrast, Israel faces a trajectory marked by a right-wing government’s proposed judicial reform, challenging democratic principles and sparking a constitutional crisis. Public protests, especially from healthcare professionals, criticize the reform for potentially undermining human rights, notably the right to health, through unchecked decisions that neglect health implications, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups. Beyond these cases, the paper underscores the global impact of COVID-19, emphasizing the interconnectedness of humanity. While countries experienced the disease differently, the collective response necessitates global cooperation for effective pandemic management. The study concludes that despite diverse individual experiences, global collaboration is vital for addressing future pandemics, offering valuable insights into the intricate relationship between pandemic management, human rights, and ethical considerations, with implications for future public health crises.
BETWEEN SECURITIZATION AND DESECURITIZATION: THE SHIFTING DISCOURSE ON THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SERBIA
BETWEEN SECURITIZATION AND DESECURITIZATION: THE SHIFTING DISCOURSE ON THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SERBIA
(BETWEEN SECURITIZATION AND DESECURITIZATION: THE SHIFTING DISCOURSE ON THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SERBIA)
- Author(s):Pavle Nedić, Marko Mandić
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Social Sciences
- Page Range:170-189
- No. of Pages:20
- Keywords:securitization; desecuritization; COVID-19; pandemic; Serbia
- Summary/Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic has urged the political decision-makers to assess numerous factors when choosing between the options they perceive an optimal response to this global crisis. Using the theory of securitization, which claims that an issue is constituted as a security threat through the use of a specific speech act performed by the securitizing actors in order to gain support by the audience for the emergency measures, the article examines how Serbian government’s decisions followed a pattern of revolving securitization and desecuritization of the COVID-19 pandemic in their response to the crisis. Serbian government’s initial approach of downplaying the threat was immediately followed by the state of emergency which lasted until the June 2020 parliamentary elections’ campaign. The shifts between the securitization and desecuritization processes lasted until the unsuccessful securitizing move in July demotivated the government from further attempts to securitize the issue out of fear of the audience’s reaction. The authors argue that the constant change of the security discourse on the issue caused a loss of the authority possessed by the securitizers, induced a state of confusion among the citizens (audience), and was primarily shaped by the context of potential political implications it can bring, particularly in relation to the parliamentary elections of 2020.
TOWARDS GLOBAL HEALTH GOVERNANCE OR TOWARDS GLOBAL CONTROL OF STATES AND PEOPLE?
TOWARDS GLOBAL HEALTH GOVERNANCE OR TOWARDS GLOBAL CONTROL OF STATES AND PEOPLE?
(TOWARDS GLOBAL HEALTH GOVERNANCE OR TOWARDS GLOBAL CONTROL OF STATES AND PEOPLE?)
- Author(s):Mirjana Dokmanović
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics, Social Sciences, Sociology, Security and defense, Globalization
- Page Range:190-214
- No. of Pages:25
- Keywords:Pandemic Treaty; public-private partnership; International Health Regulation; public health; COVID-19
- Summary/Abstract:This chapter presents key challenges in the ongoing reform of the global health regime based on the initiative to adopt a binding Pandemic Treaty and a reviewed International Health Regulation. The analysis of the proposed regulation from the human rights perspective leads to a conclusion that it entails a great potential to produce negative effects on both human rights and on the right of states to decide sovereignly on health-related issues. The proposed regulation gives the World Health Organization (WHO) the ultimate authority to decide on all issues related to public health, as well as the monopoly on informing about measures to prevent and combat pandemics and other public health emergencies. The influence of the corporate sector on the WHO will be strengthen and formalized by its inclusion in a new political body, the Global Health Threats Council. The author warns that the proposed centralized global health governance opens the door to many abuses and allows the concentration of the decision-making power concerning all issues related to the health of all people in the hands of a few.
THE ATTITUDE OF FAR-RIGHT ORGANISATIONS TOWARDS MEASURES AGAINST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SERBIA 2020–2022
THE ATTITUDE OF FAR-RIGHT ORGANISATIONS TOWARDS MEASURES AGAINST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SERBIA 2020–2022
(THE ATTITUDE OF FAR-RIGHT ORGANISATIONS TOWARDS MEASURES AGAINST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SERBIA 2020–2022)
- Author(s):Jovo Bakić
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Social Sciences
- Page Range:216-237
- No. of Pages:22
- Keywords:far-right; authoritarian regime; COVID-19 measures
- Summary/Abstract:The research subject is the attitude of far-right organizations towards the measures of the Aleksandar Vučić regime against the COVID-19 pandemic. It is based on the findings of previous research that right-wingers in general, extreme ones in particular, are less concerned about the coronavirus, often expressing doubts about its very existence, or considering it artificially produced and deliberately released due to a conspiracy of the elites against the people. Their attitude towards the measures taken by the Aleksandar Vučić regime against the spread of the pandemic should be in line with that. The harsher the measures against COVID-19 were, the harsher their criticism should have been. However, since some studies have shown that there have been some far-right organizations serving the authoritarian regime, it is expected that they would support all the regime’s measures all the time. Indeed, it turned out that “Srpska desnica”, “Levijatan”, “Srpska radikalna stranka”, “Srpska stranka Zavetnici” and the far-right football-fan tribes welcomed the measures, or kept silent about them (“Svetosavski savez Obraz”, which voiced its criticism only at the time of Easter, 19th April, “Srbska čast” and “Nacionalni srpski front”). However, there have also been extreme right-wing organizations that harshly criticized the measures during the state of emergency (“Srbska akcija”, “Narodne patrole”, “Zentropa”), and even radical right organizations that have been constantly doing this: “Srpski pokret Dveri”, “DjB-Suverenisti”, “Živim za Srbiju”.
About the authors
About the authors
(About the authors)
- Author(s):Author Not Specified
- Language:English
- Subject(s):Politics / Political Sciences, Social Sciences
- Page Range:239-245
- No. of Pages:7
