Literature DB >> 21595354

Attending to social vulnerability when rationing pandemic resources.

Dorothy E Vawter1, J Eline Garrett, Karen G Gervais, Angela Witt Prehn, Debra A DeBruin.   

Abstract

Pandemic plans are increasingly attending to groups experiencing health disparities and other social vulnerabilities. Although some pandemic guidance is silent on the issue, guidance that attends to socially vulnerable groups ranges widely, some procedural (often calling for public engagement), and some substantive. Public engagement objectives vary from merely educational to seeking reflective input into the ethical commitments that should guide pandemic planning and response. Some plans that concern rationing during a severe pandemic recommend ways to protect socially vulnerable groups without prioritizing access to scarce resources based on social vulnerability per se. The Minnesota Pandemic Ethics Project (MPEP), a public engagement project on rationing scarce health resources during a severe influenza pandemic, agrees and recommends an integrated set of ways to attend to the needs of socially vulnerable people and avoid exacerbation of health disparities during a severe influenza pandemic. Among other things, MPEP recommends: 1. Engaging socially vulnerable populations to clarify unique needs and effective strategies; 2. Engaging socially vulnerable populations to elicit ethical values and perspectives on rationing; 3. Rejecting rationing based on race, socioeconomic class, citizenship, quality of life, length of life-extension and first-come, first-served; 4. Prioritizing those in the general population for access to resources based on combinations of risk (of death or severe complications from influenza, exposure to influenza, transmitting influenza to vulnerable groups) and the likelihood of responding well to the resource in question. 5. Protecting critical infrastructures on which vulnerable populations and the general public rely; 6. Identifying and removing access barriers during pandemic planning and response; and 7. Collecting and promptly analyzing data during the pandemic to identify groups at disproportionate risk of influenza-related mortality and serious morbidity and to optimize the distribution of resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21595354

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Ethics        ISSN: 1046-7890


  4 in total

1.  Minnesota Pandemic Ethics Project update.

Authors:  Dorothy E Vawter; J Eline Garrett
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Caring for Individuals With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the COVID-19 Crisis.

Authors:  Jessica Solomon Sanders; Seth Keller; Bhooma R Aravamuthan
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2021-04

3.  Priority allocation of pandemic influenza vaccines in Australia - Recommendations of 3 community juries.

Authors:  C Degeling; J Williams; S M Carter; R Moss; P Massey; G L Gilbert; P Shih; A Braunack-Mayer; K Crooks; D Brown; J McVernon
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2020-12-13       Impact factor: 3.641

4.  Fair prioritization of casualties in disaster triage: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Vahid Ghanbari; Ali Ardalan; Armin Zareiyan; Amir Nejati; Dan Hanfling; Alireza Bagheri; Leili Rostamnia
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2021-10-13
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.