It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
As a consequence of several changes in the world, health care systems are put under considerable strain. The ongoing pandemic is one example. The strained situation calls for several immediate actions. However, and perhaps more importantly, it raises questions about how to strengthen the robustness of health care systems to withstand future challenges. This talk focuses on the ethical dimensions of working with the resilience of a health care system, more specifically, the technical infrastructure of a hospital.
The concept of resilience is a graded, rather than binary, concept. A health care system can be resilient to a certain degree at a certain time against a specific set of disruptions. To strengthen the robustness of a hospital’s technical infrastructure, may involve large investments, such as building back-up systems for electricity or water supply. This means that decisions about resource allocation must be taken when increased resilience is weighed against, for example, providing treatment for patients that are in current need of health care. Accordingly, the ethical question at stake when building resilience is what level of robustness that should be chosen.
The challenge for contemporary priority setting ethics when applied to building resilience arises from approaching priority setting as the ranking of different health conditions and their treatments (condition-treatment pairs). Contemporary principles for priority setting lack implications for several priority objects relevant for resilience that cannot be translated into condition-treatment pairs, for example, electricity and water supply. Much of the contemporary discussion in priority setting ethics have been presupposing that a certain technical infrastructure is already in place. However, these principles cannot be action guiding with regard to striking the right balance in the hospital’s robustness. We argue that this challenge can be handled by introducing a dimension of precaution in priority setting ethics.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer