Cargando…
Equivalence, Justice, Injustice – Health and Social Care Decision Making in Relation to Prison Populations
Prisons represent sites of singular healthcare need–characterized by high levels of distress and disorder. In many jurisdictions, practitioners are ethically charged with delivering healthcare that is “equivalent” to that available in the wider community. This claim has been much debated–yet the eme...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8316752/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34336988 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.649837 |
_version_ | 1783729928456372224 |
---|---|
author | Shepherd, Andrew Hewson, Tom Hard, Jake Green, Russell Shaw, Jennifer |
author_facet | Shepherd, Andrew Hewson, Tom Hard, Jake Green, Russell Shaw, Jennifer |
author_sort | Shepherd, Andrew |
collection | PubMed |
description | Prisons represent sites of singular healthcare need–characterized by high levels of distress and disorder. In many jurisdictions, practitioners are ethically charged with delivering healthcare that is “equivalent” to that available in the wider community. This claim has been much debated–yet the emergence of a global coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the arguments in a particularly stark manner. In the following conceptual analysis, we explore the emergent discourse of the coronavirus and consider its particular significance for prison healthcare decision making and the concept of equivalence. For example, both the coronavirus pandemic and practice of prison incarceration induce a sense of varied temporality: The discourse of prison is replete in this area–such as the concept of “hard time.” Alongside this, the discourse in relation to coronavirus has highlighted two competing modes of temporal understanding: The political–where the pandemic is conceptualized as has having a discrete “beginning and end”, and the scientific–where the “new normal” reflects the incorporation of the “novel” coronavirus into the wider ecology. The impact of these disparate understandings on the prison population is complex: “Locking down” prisoners–to safeguard the vulnerable against infection–is relatively simple, yet it has traumatic repercussions with respect to liberty and psychosocial health. Easing lockdown, by contrast, is a difficult endeavor and risks collision between the temporalities of prison–where “hard time” is accentuated by separation from the “real world”–the political and the scientific. Whither then the concept of equivalence in relation to a field that is definitively non-equivalent? How can practitioners and policy makers maintain a just ethical stance in relation to the allocation of resources when it comes to a politically marginalized yet manifestly vulnerable population? We argue that further debate and consideration are required in this field–and propose a framework for such discussion. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8316752 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83167522021-07-29 Equivalence, Justice, Injustice – Health and Social Care Decision Making in Relation to Prison Populations Shepherd, Andrew Hewson, Tom Hard, Jake Green, Russell Shaw, Jennifer Front Sociol Sociology Prisons represent sites of singular healthcare need–characterized by high levels of distress and disorder. In many jurisdictions, practitioners are ethically charged with delivering healthcare that is “equivalent” to that available in the wider community. This claim has been much debated–yet the emergence of a global coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the arguments in a particularly stark manner. In the following conceptual analysis, we explore the emergent discourse of the coronavirus and consider its particular significance for prison healthcare decision making and the concept of equivalence. For example, both the coronavirus pandemic and practice of prison incarceration induce a sense of varied temporality: The discourse of prison is replete in this area–such as the concept of “hard time.” Alongside this, the discourse in relation to coronavirus has highlighted two competing modes of temporal understanding: The political–where the pandemic is conceptualized as has having a discrete “beginning and end”, and the scientific–where the “new normal” reflects the incorporation of the “novel” coronavirus into the wider ecology. The impact of these disparate understandings on the prison population is complex: “Locking down” prisoners–to safeguard the vulnerable against infection–is relatively simple, yet it has traumatic repercussions with respect to liberty and psychosocial health. Easing lockdown, by contrast, is a difficult endeavor and risks collision between the temporalities of prison–where “hard time” is accentuated by separation from the “real world”–the political and the scientific. Whither then the concept of equivalence in relation to a field that is definitively non-equivalent? How can practitioners and policy makers maintain a just ethical stance in relation to the allocation of resources when it comes to a politically marginalized yet manifestly vulnerable population? We argue that further debate and consideration are required in this field–and propose a framework for such discussion. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8316752/ /pubmed/34336988 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.649837 Text en Copyright © 2021 Shepherd, Hewson, Hard, Green and Shaw. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Sociology Shepherd, Andrew Hewson, Tom Hard, Jake Green, Russell Shaw, Jennifer Equivalence, Justice, Injustice – Health and Social Care Decision Making in Relation to Prison Populations |
title | Equivalence, Justice, Injustice – Health and Social Care Decision Making in Relation to Prison Populations |
title_full | Equivalence, Justice, Injustice – Health and Social Care Decision Making in Relation to Prison Populations |
title_fullStr | Equivalence, Justice, Injustice – Health and Social Care Decision Making in Relation to Prison Populations |
title_full_unstemmed | Equivalence, Justice, Injustice – Health and Social Care Decision Making in Relation to Prison Populations |
title_short | Equivalence, Justice, Injustice – Health and Social Care Decision Making in Relation to Prison Populations |
title_sort | equivalence, justice, injustice – health and social care decision making in relation to prison populations |
topic | Sociology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8316752/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34336988 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.649837 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shepherdandrew equivalencejusticeinjusticehealthandsocialcaredecisionmakinginrelationtoprisonpopulations AT hewsontom equivalencejusticeinjusticehealthandsocialcaredecisionmakinginrelationtoprisonpopulations AT hardjake equivalencejusticeinjusticehealthandsocialcaredecisionmakinginrelationtoprisonpopulations AT greenrussell equivalencejusticeinjusticehealthandsocialcaredecisionmakinginrelationtoprisonpopulations AT shawjennifer equivalencejusticeinjusticehealthandsocialcaredecisionmakinginrelationtoprisonpopulations |