Cargando…
Priorisierung von Geimpften?
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM: The article asks whether vaccination status could become relevant if it is unavoidable to prioritize between patients in intensive care units during a pandemic. The aim is to analyze different approaches and arguments in favor of and against the inclusion of vaccination st...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9361248/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35967089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00481-022-00716-8 |
_version_ | 1784764490368155648 |
---|---|
author | Hörnle, Tatjana |
author_facet | Hörnle, Tatjana |
author_sort | Hörnle, Tatjana |
collection | PubMed |
description | DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM: The article asks whether vaccination status could become relevant if it is unavoidable to prioritize between patients in intensive care units during a pandemic. The aim is to analyze different approaches and arguments in favor of and against the inclusion of vaccination status. ARGUMENTS: The following arguments are assessed: First, it has been argued that it is unnecessary to open this discussion. Second, one could make the point that public debates about touchy subjects should be avoided. A third, frequently expressed opinion claims that physicians must never discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, either because this is in conflict with human rights or because this is incompatible with the general principle that patients’ prior conduct does not matter. Fourth, behavioral economists argue that intensive care medicine should take vaccination status into account with the goal to improve the overall numbers of vaccinations. A fifth line of thinking argues that it is more just to take vaccination into account. CONCLUSION: The author concludes that the omission to get a necessary and recommended vaccination may be taken into account if patients’ prospects to survive are similar. She points out that lotteries would be worse. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9361248 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93612482022-08-09 Priorisierung von Geimpften? Hörnle, Tatjana Ethik Med Originalarbeit DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM: The article asks whether vaccination status could become relevant if it is unavoidable to prioritize between patients in intensive care units during a pandemic. The aim is to analyze different approaches and arguments in favor of and against the inclusion of vaccination status. ARGUMENTS: The following arguments are assessed: First, it has been argued that it is unnecessary to open this discussion. Second, one could make the point that public debates about touchy subjects should be avoided. A third, frequently expressed opinion claims that physicians must never discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, either because this is in conflict with human rights or because this is incompatible with the general principle that patients’ prior conduct does not matter. Fourth, behavioral economists argue that intensive care medicine should take vaccination status into account with the goal to improve the overall numbers of vaccinations. A fifth line of thinking argues that it is more just to take vaccination into account. CONCLUSION: The author concludes that the omission to get a necessary and recommended vaccination may be taken into account if patients’ prospects to survive are similar. She points out that lotteries would be worse. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-08-09 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9361248/ /pubmed/35967089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00481-022-00716-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen. Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Originalarbeit Hörnle, Tatjana Priorisierung von Geimpften? |
title | Priorisierung von Geimpften? |
title_full | Priorisierung von Geimpften? |
title_fullStr | Priorisierung von Geimpften? |
title_full_unstemmed | Priorisierung von Geimpften? |
title_short | Priorisierung von Geimpften? |
title_sort | priorisierung von geimpften? |
topic | Originalarbeit |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9361248/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35967089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00481-022-00716-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hornletatjana priorisierungvongeimpften |