TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethical Reasoning During a Pandemic

T2 - Results of a Five Country European Study

AU - Johnson, S. B.

AU - Lucivero, F.

AU - Zimmermann, B. M.

AU - Stendahl, E.

AU - Samuel, G.

AU - Phillips, A.

AU - Hangel, N.

N1 - Funding Information: This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust Grant number 221038/Z/20/Z and Wellcome Center Grant (203132/Z/16/Z), the ERC grant agreement No 771217, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [Grant number 01Kl20510], the University of Basel Research Fund [Grant number 3BE1003]. This publication has been made possible by the joint work of the members of the SolPan research commons. Thanks to Professor Ian Kerridge for a helpful review of a later draft of this paper. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Introduction: There has been no work that identifies the hidden or implicit normative assumptions on which participants base their views during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their reasoning and how they reach moral or ethical judgements. Our analysis focused on participants’ moral values, ethical reasoning and normative positions around the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Methods: We analyzed data from 177 semi-structured interviews across five European countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) conducted in April 2020.Results: Findings are structured in four themes: ethical contention in the context of normative uncertainty; patterns of ethical deliberation when contemplating restrictions and measures to reduce viral transmission; moral judgements regarding “good” and “bad” people; using existing structures of meaning for moral reasoning and ethical judgement.Discussion: Moral tools are an integral part of people’s reaction to and experience of a pandemic. ‘Moral preparedness’ for the next phases of this pandemic and for future pandemics will require an understanding of the moral values and normative concepts citizens use in their own decision-making. Three important elements of this preparedness are: conceptual clarity over what responsibility or respect mean in practice; better understanding of collective mindsets and how to encourage them; and a situated, rather than universalist, approach to the development of normative standards.

AB - Introduction: There has been no work that identifies the hidden or implicit normative assumptions on which participants base their views during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their reasoning and how they reach moral or ethical judgements. Our analysis focused on participants’ moral values, ethical reasoning and normative positions around the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Methods: We analyzed data from 177 semi-structured interviews across five European countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) conducted in April 2020.Results: Findings are structured in four themes: ethical contention in the context of normative uncertainty; patterns of ethical deliberation when contemplating restrictions and measures to reduce viral transmission; moral judgements regarding “good” and “bad” people; using existing structures of meaning for moral reasoning and ethical judgement.Discussion: Moral tools are an integral part of people’s reaction to and experience of a pandemic. ‘Moral preparedness’ for the next phases of this pandemic and for future pandemics will require an understanding of the moral values and normative concepts citizens use in their own decision-making. Three important elements of this preparedness are: conceptual clarity over what responsibility or respect mean in practice; better understanding of collective mindsets and how to encourage them; and a situated, rather than universalist, approach to the development of normative standards.

KW - COVID-19

KW - Ethics

KW - infectious disease

KW - moral judgements

KW - pandemics

KW - qualitative research

KW - SARS-COV-2

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126371192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/23294515.2022.2040645

DO - 10.1080/23294515.2022.2040645

M3 - Article

C2 - 35262468

AN - SCOPUS:85126371192

VL - 13

SP - 67

EP - 78

JO - AJOB Empirical Bioethics

JF - AJOB Empirical Bioethics

SN - 2329-4515

IS - 2

ER -