Authors:Allen Alvarez, Espen Dyrnes Stabell, Gitte Koksvik, May Thorseth Pages: 1 - 4 Abstract: This special issue of Etikk i Praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics features four articles that address a number of urgent ethical issues that arise in the COVID-19 pandemic. PubDate: 2021-12-20 DOI: 10.5324/eip.v15i2.4537
Authors:Sindre August Horn, Mathias Barra, Ole Frithjof Norheim, Carl Tollef Solberg Pages: 5 - 15 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. Keywords: COVID-19, Prioritarianism, Priority Setting, Public Health, Severity PubDate: 2021-12-20 DOI: 10.5324/eip.v15i2.4097
Authors:Elias Moser Pages: 17 - 28 Abstract: In 2020, after the first COVID-19 lockdown, several countries implemented a policy of contact tracing and self-isolating for individuals who crossed borders or came into contact with infected people. To enforce these restrictions, some states imposed very harsh monetary penalties for people who violated them. Behind these harsh fines lies an instrumental rationale. They allow the state to avoid implementing a system of labor-intensive and costly surveillance and enforcement. In this article I argue that such severe penalties are extremely unjust. In order not to expose citizens to the risk of being excessively fined, governmental institutions should instead intensify controls. I argue that they owe it to their citizens to increase the surveillance of compliance with self-isolation obligations. Keywords: COVID-19, Quarantine, Self-Isolation, Theories of Punishment, Economics of Criminal Justice, Proportionality PubDate: 2021-12-20 DOI: 10.5324.eip.v15i2.4102
Authors:Attila Tanyi, Magnus Egan Pages: 29 - 47 Abstract: In response to the COVID pandemic, the Norwegian government implemented the strictest border controls in modern Norwegian history, barring entry to most foreign nationals. The Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, justified these policies with reference to the rise of new COVID variants and the need to limit visitors to Norway as much as possible. As this approach has severe adverse effects on many people, there is a need to critically examine the justification given for closing the border. In this paper, we argue that while many border restrictions are legitimate, (1) the arguments given for the recent banning of entry for groups of people are not convincing, and (2) that the ban unduly limits personal freedoms and places an unjust burden on transnational citizens and Norwegians with close relations abroad. Keywords: COVID-19, Border Closure, Border Restrictions, Justice, Sovereignty, Nationalism, Immigration, Freedom, Ignorance PubDate: 2021-12-20 DOI: 10.5324/eip.v15i2.4093
Authors:Nathan Emmerich, Pat McConville Pages: 49 - 61 Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has occasioned a great deal of ethical reflection both in general and on the issue of reverse triage; a practice that effectively reallocates resources from one patient to another on the basis of the latter having a more favourable clinical prognosis. This paper addresses a specific concern that has arisen in relation to such proposals: the potential reallocation of ventilators relied upon by disabled or chronically ill patients. This issue is examined via three morally parallel scenarios. First, the standard reallocation of a ventilator in accordance with reverse triage protocols; second, the reallocation of a personal ventilator from a chronically ill patient ordinarily reliant on it; and, third, the reallocation of a personal ventilator owned by a financially privileged individual but who is not ordinarily reliant on it. This paper suggests that whilst property rights cannot resolve these scenarios in a satisfactory manner, it may be possible to do so if we draw on the resources of phenomenology. However, in contradistinction to a recent paper on this topic (Reynolds et al. 2021), we argue that ethical claims to ventilators are not well grounded by the overly demanding notion that they are embodied objects. We suggest that the alternative phenomenological notion of homelikeness provides for a more plausible resolution of the issue. The personal ventilators of individuals who commonly rely upon them become part of their ordinary, everyday or homelike being. They are a necessary part of the continuation or maintenance of their basic state of health or wellbeing and the reallocation of such objects is unethical. Keywords: Phenomenology, COVID-19, Pandemic, Triage, Reverse triage, Ventilation, Chronic illness, Allocation of resources PubDate: 2021-12-20 DOI: 10.5324/eip.v15i2.4092
Authors:Krister Bykvist Pages: 63 - 65 Abstract: This is a commentary to Mat Rozas "Two asymmetries in population and general normative ethics". PubDate: 2021-12-20 DOI: 10.5324/eip.v15i2.4083
Open Access journal
