Giuseppe
Emeritus
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science - 6(3):227
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science
Ethics and Severe Pandemic Influenza: Maintaining Essential Functions through a Fair and Considered Response
To cite this paper:
Nancy E. Kass, Jean Otto, Daniel O'Brien, Matthew Minson. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. September 1, 2008, 6(3): 227-236. doi:10.1089/bsp.2008.0020.
Full Text PDF: *HiRes for printing (83.2 KB) ? PDF Plus w/ links (92.4 KB)
Nancy E. Kass - Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Jean Otto - Department of Defense, Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System, Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD
Daniel O'Brien - Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore.
Matthew Minson - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
This article provides ethics guidance for pandemic planning, response, and resource allocation?that is, what ethical considerations determine which public health responses are implemented, who will be restricted and who will be helped, what will be communicated to the public, and how will the public be included in decisions and responses?
The response to severe pandemic influenza will be managed by experts in public health and infectious disease and by government officials to whom the public will turn for information and direction.
Nonetheless, there remain important ethical considerations that can shape what goals are given priority, how scarce resources are distributed, how the public is included, and how we treat the most vulnerable in our response to a pandemic.
This article assumes that the secondary consequences of severe pandemic influenza could be greater than deaths and illness from influenza itself.
Response plans, then, must consider threats to societal as well as medical infrastructures.
While some have suggested that scarce medical countermeasures be allocated primarily to first responders and then to the sickest, we suggest that an ethical public health response should set priorities based on essential functions.
An ethical response also will engage the public, will coordinate interdependent sectors as a core preparedness priority, and will address how plans affect and can be understood by the least well off.
<cite cite="http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/bsp.2008.0020">Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science - 6(3):227</cite>Ethics and Severe Pandemic Influenza: Maintaining Essential Functions through a Fair and Considered Response
To cite this paper:
Nancy E. Kass, Jean Otto, Daniel O'Brien, Matthew Minson. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. September 1, 2008, 6(3): 227-236. doi:10.1089/bsp.2008.0020.
Full Text PDF: *HiRes for printing (83.2 KB) ? PDF Plus w/ links (92.4 KB)
Nancy E. Kass - Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Jean Otto - Department of Defense, Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System, Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD
Daniel O'Brien - Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore.
Matthew Minson - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
This article provides ethics guidance for pandemic planning, response, and resource allocation?that is, what ethical considerations determine which public health responses are implemented, who will be restricted and who will be helped, what will be communicated to the public, and how will the public be included in decisions and responses?
The response to severe pandemic influenza will be managed by experts in public health and infectious disease and by government officials to whom the public will turn for information and direction.
Nonetheless, there remain important ethical considerations that can shape what goals are given priority, how scarce resources are distributed, how the public is included, and how we treat the most vulnerable in our response to a pandemic.
This article assumes that the secondary consequences of severe pandemic influenza could be greater than deaths and illness from influenza itself.
Response plans, then, must consider threats to societal as well as medical infrastructures.
While some have suggested that scarce medical countermeasures be allocated primarily to first responders and then to the sickest, we suggest that an ethical public health response should set priorities based on essential functions.
An ethical response also will engage the public, will coordinate interdependent sectors as a core preparedness priority, and will address how plans affect and can be understood by the least well off.