COVID-19 Vaccination Passports: Are They a Threat to Equality?

Non-empirical methods for ethics research on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health: a systematic journal review

Bioethics has developed approaches to address ethical issues in health care, similar to how technology ethics provides guidelines for ethical research on artificial intelligence, big data, and robotic applications. As these digital technologies are increasingly used in medicine, health care and public health, thus, it is plausible that the approaches of technology ethics have influenced bioethical research. Similar to the "empirical turn" in bioethics, which led to intense debates about appropriate moral theories, ethical frameworks and meta-ethics due to the increased use of empirical methodologies from social sciences, the proliferation of health-related subtypes of technology ethics might have a comparable impact on current bioethical research. This systematic journal review analyses the reporting of ethical frameworks and non-empirical methods in argument-based research articles on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health that have been published in high-impact bioethics journals. We focus on articles reporting non-empirical research in original contributions. Our aim is to describe currently used methods for the ethical analysis of ethical issues regarding the application of digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health. We confine our analysis to non-empirical methods because empirical methods have been well-researched elsewhere. Finally, we discuss our findings against the background of established methods for health technology assessment, the lack of a typology for non-empirical methods as well as conceptual and methodical change in bioethics. Our descriptive results may serve as a starting point for reflecting on whether current ethical frameworks and non-empirical methods are appropriate to research ethical issues deriving from the application of digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health.

Loss of Moral Values During Business-Like Transformations in Healthcare Services

BACKGROUND

The shortcomings of business-like management systems in health care were exposed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic when the need for flexibility and a rapid response to patients' needs became pressing. Almost all administrative decisions concerning the management of health care services have an ethical dimension. This research aims to investigate current debates on this subject and fill in the knowledge gaps.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to identify neurosurgical ethical concerns related to transformations in the functioning of health care institutions; however, the data analysis is presented in a narrative format.

RESULTS

Two management models were identified and compared: a business/economic management model versus a medical model. Independent of the management model chosen, problems arise when a framework is adopted where measurement and proxy parameters are implemented and economic mechanisms are used for administrative steering. The proxy measures of physician performance proved to be entirely inappropriate during the pandemic. The pandemic suddenly made many management models obsolete as doctors tried to solve immediate problems according to their medical training rather than by following abstract systems for maximizing public health. The measures were largely taken in a bottom-up fashion based on physicians' training and knowledge, not in a top-down manner dictated by management.

CONCLUSIONS

Purely financial cost containment strategies in health care can be ineffective or even harmful. Therefore, nonfinancial control mechanisms must ensure adherence to personal and professional ethics, together with professionalism based on sound medical knowledge.

Discretion in decision to receive COVID-19 vaccines and associated socio-economic inequalities in rates of uptake: a whole-of-population data linkage study from Australia

OBJECTIVE

In Australia, first and second compared to third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were implemented under different policies and contexts, resulting in greater discretion in decisions to receive a third compared to first and second dose. We quantified socio-economic inequalities in first and third dose to understand how discretion is associated with differences in uptake.

STUDY DESIGN

Whole-of-population cohort study.

METHODS

Linked immunisation, census, death and migration data were used to estimate weekly proportions who received first and third doses of a COVID-19 vaccine until 31 August 2022 for those with low (no formal qualification) compared to high (university degree) education, stratified by 10-year age group (from 30 to 89 years). We estimated relative rates using Cox regression, including adjustment for sociodemographic factors.

RESULTS

Among 13.1 million people in our study population, 94% had received a first and 80% a third dose by 31 August 2022. Rates of uptake of first and third dose were around 50% lower for people with low compared to high education. Gaps were small in absolute terms for first dose, and at the end of the study period ranged from 1 to 11 percentage points across age groups. However, gaps were substantial for third dose, particularly at younger ages where the socio-economic gap was as wide as 32 percentage-points.

CONCLUSION

Education-related inequalities in uptake were larger where discretion in decisions was larger. Policies that limited discretion in decisions to receive vaccines may have contributed to achieving the dual aims of maximising uptake and minimising inequalities.

More Time, Carrot-and-Stick, or Piling Coffins? Estimating the Role of Factors Overcoming COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Poland and Lithuania in the Years 2021–2022

In this study, motivation for late (from 2021-W22, i.e., 24 July 2021) uptake of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine among adults in Poland and Lithuania is indirectly measured in order to avoid social-desirability bias or rationalisation in retrospect of prior decisions. Weekly vaccine uptake is modeled as if vaccine hesitant people were late adopters of a new product, with a fitted non-linear trend representing steadily decreasing interest. Before the analysed period, the vaccine uptake among Polish and Lithuanian adults was almost identical. Vaccination simply explainable by the trend was responsible for the vaccination of an additional 19.96% and 19.06% adults, respectively. The fear incurred by spikes in consecutive waves of infection motivated 3.20% and 3.89% more people, respectively, while the COVID-19 passport, introduced only in Lithuania, convinced an additional 13.98% of the overall population. The effect of the COVID passport was the biggest in the 18–24 age group, and the least visible among people aged 80 or more. In the latter group, other factors also had a limited impact, with merely 1.32% tempted by the one-time €100 payment offered to everybody aged 75 or more.