ABSTRACT
The current COVID-19 pandemic has reactivated ancient metaphors (especially military ones) but also initiated a new vocabulary: social distancing, lockdown, self-isolation, and sheltering in place. Terminology is not ethically neutral but reflects prevailing value systems. I will argue that there are two metaphorical vocabularies at work: an authoritarian one and a liberal one. Missing is an ecological vocabulary. It has been known for a long time that emerging infectious diseases are associated with the destruction of functioning ecosystems and biodiversity. Ebola and avian influenza viruses have been significant warnings. Obviously, this pandemic will not be the last one. As the planet is our common home, the major metaphor to explore is sheltering at this home.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases, Emerging , Disasters , Ecology , Metaphor , Pandemics , Animals , Biodiversity , Bioethics , Birds , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/virology , Communicable Disease Control , Communicable Diseases, Emerging/etiology , Communicable Diseases, Emerging/virology , Conservation of Natural Resources , Ebolavirus , Ecology/ethics , Ecosystem , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/virology , Humans , Influenza A virus , Influenza in Birds , Physical Distancing , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
The use of coercive measures in the care for the addicted has changed over the past 20 years. Laws that have adopted the "dangerousness" criterion in order to secure patients' rights to non-intervention are increasingly subjected to critique as many authors plead for wider dangerousness criteria. One of the most salient moral issues at stake is whether addicts who are at risk of causing danger to themselves should be involuntarily admitted and/or treated. In this article, it is argued that the dilemma between coercion on the one hand and abandonment on the other cannot be analysed without differentiated perspectives on the key notions that are used in these debates. The ambiguity these notions carry within care practice indicates that the conflict between the prevention of danger and respect for autonomy is not as sharp as the legal systems seem to imply. Some coercive measures need not be interpreted as an infringement of autonomy--rather, they should be interpreted as a way to provide good care.
Subject(s)
Coercion , Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , Substance-Related Disorders/therapy , Caregivers , Dangerous Behavior , Ethics, Medical , Humans , Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence , Moral Obligations , Personal Autonomy , Professional-Patient Relations/ethics , Social ResponsibilityABSTRACT
Since its inception, the Health Council of the Netherlands has included normative aspects in its reports. Over the past decades, ethics and rights have received increasing attention, particularly since the establishment of the Standing Committee on Medical Ethics and Health Law in 1977. In particular, the ethical implications of bio-molecular life sciences (genetic counselling, genetic screening, research with human embryos) have been discussed in the Council's publications. The Council has also been involved from an early stage in the euthanasia discussion. It is accepted that policy advice concerning scientific developments implies normative considerations. However, the extent to which the Council's role is simply to highlight these considerations or to present conclusions remains a recurring question. In the latter case, priority is often given to the principle of respect for autonomy, while underestimating the significance of solidarity.
