Human health versus human rights: An emerging ethical dilemma arising from coronavirus disease pandemic.
Human health versus human rights: An emerging ethical dilemma arising from coronavirus disease pandemic.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jemep.2020.100511
复制
发表时间：
2020-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Oyeniran, O I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chia, T;Oyeniran, O I
世界正在努力控制冠状病毒的爆发，截至2020年3月31日，在202个国家，地区或领土的754，948例确诊病例中，已有36，571例死亡[1]。流行病通常具有恐慌感和不确定性的特点。尽管已经制定了全球准备和应急程序[2]，但围绕这一流行病的不确定性对遵守这些程序提出了相当大的问题。对个人、团体、社区、城市甚至整个地区都施加了不同程度的广泛限制。这些限制从一开始就违反了公民权利和人权。这些措施现在已在地球仪的许多区域和国家广泛实施，但也提出了新的伦理问题。在人类健康和人权之间，哪一个优先？尽管伦理考虑是此类突发公共卫生事件规划和实施的核心[2-4]，但实际上遵守这些法规和指南是有问题的。在大流行的情况下，如果不严格遵守伦理原则，就会发生滥用个人权利的情况[5，6]。相反，坚持可以得到公众的合理支持，从而最大限度地减少不愉快的后果[7]。也许在此基础上，世界卫生组织（WHO）建议在当前的冠状病毒大流行中不要限制旅行[8]。世界卫生组织的《国际卫生条例》（IHR）规定了各国如何在不干扰人类活动的情况下应对疾病的全球传播。然而，由于没有针对COVID-19治疗的明确治疗方法或疫苗，许多国家已实施似乎违反世卫组织指导方针的措施。该病毒起源于中国，随后出口到其他国家和地区，然后在这些社区内传播，因此采取了严厉的措施。鉴于人类是病媒，也是受害者，通过社交距离、隔离和隔离来减少人类互动是最适当的行动[9]。使用这些方法，虽然是老式的[10]，但在处理流行病方面，现在似乎是最直接和可行的解决办法。在2003年SARS爆发时，这些措施在遏制疾病方面是有用的[11]。因此，越来越多的国家正在限制进出其领土的旅行，
The world is contending to contain the outbreak of coronavirus which has now resulted to 36,571 mortalities out of the 754,948 confirmed cases in 202 countries, areas or territories as at March 31, 2020 [1]. Pandemics are usually characterized by a sense of panic and uncertainties. Even though global preparedness and emergency procedures have been enacted [2], the uncertainties surrounding this pandemic raise considerable questions to their adherence. Widespread restrictions of varying degrees have been placed on individuals, groups, communities, cities or even whole regions. These restrictions ab initio are in contradiction to civil and human rights. These measures, which are now widely implemented in many regions and countries of the globe, have thrown up fresh ethical questions. Between human health and human rights, which takes primacy?Notwithstanding that ethical considerations are at the core of planning and implementation in such public health emergencies [2—4], the adherence to these regulations and guidelines in reality is problematic. Abuse of individual’s rights is known to occur when ethical principles are not strictly adhered to in pandemic situations [5, 6]. On the contrary, adherence can elicit reasonable support from the general public thereby minimizing unpleasant consequences [7]. On this basis perhaps, the World Health Organization (WHO) advised against travel restrictions in the current coronavirus pandemic [8]. The WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) stipulates how nations could address the global spread of disease and without interfering with human activities [2]. However, with no definite treatment or vaccine for COVID-19 treatment, many nations have enforced measures which seem to contravene the WHO guidelines. The virus, which originated from China and was subsequently exported to other countries and territories before local transmission within those communities, has occasioned draconian measures. Given that humans are the vectors, as well as the victims, minimizing human interaction through social distancing, quarantine and isolation is the most appropriate action to take [9]. The use of these methods, though old fashioned [10], in dealing with pandemics appears to be the most immediate and feasible solution now. In the 2003 SARS outbreak, these same measures were useful in curbing the disease [11]. Hence, an increasing number of nations are restricting travels in and out of their territories, canceling