Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 67-78 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | AJOB Empirical Bioethics |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2022 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Abstract
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.
Keywords
- COVID-19, Ethics, infectious disease, moral judgements, pandemics, qualitative research, SARS-COV-2
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)
- Health(social science)
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- Philosophy
- Medicine(all)
- Health Policy
Sustainable Development Goals
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: AJOB Empirical Bioethics, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2022, p. 67-78.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
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 -