Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bioethics After Covid

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Covid-19 Pandemic and Global Bioethics

Part of the book series: Advancing Global Bioethics ((AGBIO,volume 18))

Abstract

This chapter will analyze the implications of Covid-19 experiences for bioethical discourse. Mainstream bioethics operates with the ethical principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence, and justice. Within this framework, ethical dilemmas are identified between personal freedom and public health, for example in regard to quarantine, face masks, and testing. The framework also encourages balancing benefits and harms of policy interventions and potential medical treatments and vaccines, as well as weighing different values such as health, freedom of movement, and employment. This chapter argues that from the perspective of global bioethics, a wider framework of ethical considerations should be used, especially vulnerability, connectedness and community, solidarity and cooperation. As a global phenomenon, the pandemic cannot be only interpreted from an individual point of view; it problematizes social and communal relations and requires a social and global ethical perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Howard-Jones, N. 1975. The scientific background of the international sanitary conferences, 1851–1938. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brown, T.M., M. Cueto, and E. Fee. 2006. The World Health Organization and the transition from “international” to “global” public health. American Journal of Public Health 96 (1): 62–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. A PubMed search with the key-word ‘global health’ shows 564 publications in 1990, 2,071 in 2000, and 45,624 in 2020. See also: Holst, J. 2020. Global health – Emergence, hegemonic trends and biomedical reductionism. Globalization and Health 16, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ten Have, H.A.M.J. 2019. Wounded planet. How declining biodiversity endangers health and how bioethics can help. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 50 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harrison, M. 2015. A global perspective: Reframing the history of health, medicine, and disease. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 89: 639–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. For example, Koplan et al. define global health as “an area for study, research and practice that places a priority on improving health and achieving equity in health for all people worldwide.” Koplan, J.P., T. C. Bond, M. H. Merson, et al. 2009. Towards a common definition of global health. Lancet 373, 1995. The notion of global health differs from public health in its geographical reach (public health is focused on countries, communities and even cities), its level of cooperation (public health usually does not require global cooperation), and objectives (public health mainly focuses on prevention activities for populations).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Planetary health is defined as “the health of human civilisation and the state of the natural systems on which it depends.” Whitmee, S., A. Haines, C. Beyrer, et al., 2015. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch. Report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 386, 1978. See also, Horton, R., R. Beaglehole, R. Bonita, et al. 2014. From public to planetary health: A manifesto. Lancet 383, 847.

    Google Scholar 

  8. World Health Organization. 2007. World health report 2007 – A safer future: Global public health security in the 21st century. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ten Have, H. 2014. Vulnerability as the antidote to neoliberalism in bioethics. Revista Redbioetica/UNESCO 5 (1; no.9): 87–92; Ten Have, H. 2015. Respect for human vulnerability: The emergence of a new principle in bioethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12 (3): 395–408.

    Google Scholar 

  10. In 1995 the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases was launched. A PubMed search with the keyword ‘emerging diseases’ shows 1,651 publications in 1992, and 40,356 in 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  11. “Although it is impossible to predict their individual emergence in time and place, we can be confident that new microbial diseases will emerge.” Institute of Medicine. 1992. Emerging infections. Microbial threats to health in the United States. Washington: National Academy Press, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  12. “In fact, environmental changes probably account for most emerging diseases.” Institute of Medicine, Emerging infections, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pandemics “… almost always begin with the transmission of an animal microbe to a human…” Wolfe, N. 2011. The viral storm. The dawn of a new pandemic age. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wolfe, The viral storm, 161. See also, Wolfe, N. D., C. P. Dunavan, and J. Diamond. 2007. Origins of major infectious diseases. Nature 447: 279–283.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wolfe, The viral storm, 242.

    Google Scholar 

  16. We are confronted with an “endless dance between microbes and humans.” Khan, A.S. 2020. The next pandemic. On the frontlines against humankind’s gravest dangers. New York: PublicAffairs, 255.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mackenzie, D. 2020. Covid-19. The pandemic that never should have happened, and how to stop it. London: The Bridge Street Press, 233 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rosa, H. 2020. The uncontrollability of the world. Cambridge: Polity Press, viii.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rosa, The uncontrollability of the world, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rosa, The uncontrollability of the world, 5 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See for example, Macip, S. 2020. Modern epidemics. From the Spanish flu to Covid-19. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Khan, The next pandemic; Wolfe, The viral storm.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weber, M. 1958. Science as a vocation. Daedalus 87 (1): 111–134.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ten Have, H., and R. Pegoraro. 2021. Bioethics, healthcare and the soul. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Mansnerus, E. 2013. Using model-based evidence in the governance of pandemics. In Pandemics and emerging infectious diseases: The sociological agenda, edited by R. Dingwall, L. M. Hoffman, and K. Staniland. Chichester: Wiley, 111.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Exceptions are, for example, Woesler, M., and H.-M. Sass, eds. 2020. Medicine and ethics in times of corona. Zürich: LIT Verlag; Child, B.H., and L. Vearrier, eds. 2021. Special issue: Covid 2020: Historical and ethical perspectives. HEC Forum 33 (1–2): 1–164.

    Google Scholar 

  27. One month later, in April 2021, similar adverse effects are observed with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, although in more rare cases (1 in 1 million). Wallis, C. 2021. Few would fear Covid vaccines if policy makers explained their risks better. Scientific American, April 30.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Coutinho, R. 2021. Vaxx. Hoe vaccinaties onze wereld beter hebben gemaakt. Amsterdam: Ambo/Anthos, 152–153; Marsa, L. 2021. Can AstraZeneca dispel doubts about its shots? National Geographic, April 2.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ledford, H. 2021. Covid vaccines and blood clots: Five key questions. Nature 592 (7855): 495–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Horton, R. 2020. The Covid-19 catastrophe. What’s gone wrong and how to stop it happening again. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Fins, J.J. 2020. Covid-19 makes clear that bioethics must confront health disparities. The Hastings Center, July 9; Martins, A.A. 2021. Global bioethics in a pandemic: A dialogical approach. Health Care Ethics USA.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Berkowitz, S.A., C.W. Cené, and A. Chatterjee. 2020. Covid-19 and health equity – Time to think big. New England Journal of Medicine 383: e76(1)–e76(3).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Childs, B.H., and I. Vearrier. 2021. A journal of the Covid-19 (plague) year. HEC Forum 33: 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Baldwin, P. 2021. Fighting the first wave. Why the coronavirus was tackled so differently across the globe, 79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Baldwin, Fighting the first wave, 36, 112.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Burki, T.K. 2021. Herd immunity for Covid-19. Lancet. Respiratory Medicine 9 (2): 135–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Herstel-NL. 2021. Het plan van herstel-NL.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Symons, X. 2020. Should we sacrifice older people to save the economy? BioEdge, March 28.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Aschwanden, C. 2020. The false promise of heard immunity for Covid-19. Nature 587: 26–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sabino, E.C., L.F. Buss, M.P.S. Carvalho, et al. 2021. Resurgence of Covid-19 in Manaus, Brazil, despite high seroprevalence. Lancet 397: 452–455; Taylor, L. 2021. Covid 19: Is Manaus the final nail in the coffin for natural herd immunity? British Medical Journal 372: m394.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See, for example Article 3 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Symons, X. 2020. Is seeking ‘herd immunity’ ethical? BioEdge, May 9.

    Google Scholar 

  43. “Chronological age is a poor marker of vitality and ability to benefit from treatment.” Ebrahim, S. 2002. The medicalization of old age. British Medical Journal 324: 862.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fisher, A. 2013. Fair innings? Against healthcare rationing in favour of the young over the elderly. Studies in Christian Ethics 26 (4): 439; Hunt, R. W. 1993. A critique of using age to ration health care. Journal of Medical Ethics 19: 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rivlin, M.M. 2000. Why the fair innings argument is not persuasive. BMC Medical Ethics 1: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wareham gives the example of South Africa where the vast majority of the elderly population has been deprived, discriminated and exploited during most of their lives. Wareham, C.S. 2015. Youngest first? Why it is wrong to discriminate against the elderly in healthcare. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 8 (1): 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Williams, A. 1997. Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Economics 6: 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fisher, Fair innings?, 446; Bramstedt, K.A. 2001. Age-based health care allocation as a wedge separating the person from the patient and commodifying medicine. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology 11: 185–188; De Medeiros, K. 2020. A Covid-19 side effect: Virulent resurgence of ageism. The Hastings Center, May 14.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Peisah, C., A. Byrnes, I. Doron, et al. 2020. Advocacy for the human rights of older people in the Covid pandemic and beyond: A call to mental health professionals. International Psychogeriatrics 32 (10):1199–1204; Shortt, S. 2001. Venerable or vulnerable? Ageism in health care. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 6 (1):1–2; De Medeiros, A Covid-19 side effect.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ayalon, L. 2020. There is nothing new under the sun: ageism and intergenerational tension in the age of the Covid-19 outbreak. International Psychogeriatrics 32 (10): 1221–1224; Fraser, S., M. Lagacé, B. Bongué, et al. 2020. Ageism and Covid-19: What does our society’s response say about us? Age and Ageing 49 (5): 692–695.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Brooke, J., and D. Jackson. 2020. Older people and Covid-19: Isolation, risk and ageism. Journal of Clinical Nursing 29: 2044–2046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. DutchNews.nl. 2020. Dispensable? Dead wood? Coronavirus dilemma sparks social media debate. August 10.

    Google Scholar 

  53. British Medical Association (BMA). 2021. Statement/ briefing about the use of age and/or disability in our guidance; World Health Organization. 2021. Global report on ageism. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Den Exter, A. 2020. The Dutch critical care triage guidelines on Covid-19: Not necessarily discriminatory. European Journal of Health Law 27 (5): 495–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kuylen, M.N.I., S.Y. Kim, A.R. Keene, and G.S. Owen. 2021. Should age matter in Covid-19 triage? A deliberative study. Journal of Medical Ethics 47: 291–295.

    Google Scholar 

  56. See chapter 6.

    Google Scholar 

  57. De Castro, L., and J. Yasol-Naval. 2020. Sustainable Covid-19 response measures: An ethical imperative for enhancing core human capabilities. In Medicine and ethics in times of corona, edited by Woesler, M., and H-M. Sass. Zürich: LIT Verlag, 283–299.

    Google Scholar 

  58. It can be argued that physical distancing is also dependent on social conditions. Keeping physical distance to others is not merely controlled by individual decision-making but dependent on what other people do and what is appropriate in social interactions as a form of nonverbal communication. Kaminsky, C. 2020. Normality “ex post”: social conditions of moral responsibility. In Medicine and ethics in times of corona, edited by Woesler, M., and H-M. Sass. Zürich: LIT Verlag, 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Weber, Science as vocation, 133.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Hadot, P. 1995. Philosophy as a way of life. Spiritual exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ten Have, and Pegoraro, Bioethics, healthcare and the soul.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Webb, K. 2016. Ethical life. Its natural and social histories. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Warnock, G.J. 1971. The object of morality. London: Methuen & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wilson, D., and W. Dixon. 2012. A history of Homo Economicus. The nature of the moral in economic theory. London and New York: Routledge; Hayek, F. 2005. The road to serfdom. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Bowles, S. 2016. The moral economy. Why good incentives are no substitute for good citizens. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; Granovetter, M. 2017. Society and economy. Framework and principles. Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; Christakis, N.A. 2019. Blueprint. The evolutionary origins of a good society. New York, Boston, London: Little, Brown Spark.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mackenzie, C., and N. Stoljar. 2000. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gintis, H. 2017. Individuality and entanglement: The moral and material bases of social life. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. World Emergency Covid-19 Pandemic Ethics (WeCope) Committee. 2020. Statement on individual autonomy and social responsibility within a public health emergency. In Medicine and ethics in times of corona, edited by Woesler, M., and H-M. Sass. Zürich: LIT Verlag, 419–425.

    Google Scholar 

  69. World Emergency Covid-19 Pandemic Ethics (WeCope) Committee, Statement on individual autonomy and social responsibility within a public health emergency, 421; Macer, D. 2020. The foundation and functioning of the world emergency Covid-19 pandemic ethics committee. In Medicine and ethics in times of corona, edited by Woesler, M., and H-M. Sass. Zürich: LIT Verlag, 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Bieri, P. 2017. Human dignity: A way of living. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Midgley, M. 2014. Are you an illusion? 62. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Horton, R. 2004. Rediscovering human dignity. The Lancet 364: 1081–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Sayer, A. 2011. Why things matter to people. Social science, values and ethical life, 193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  74. Ten Have, H. 2016. Global bioethics. An introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 113 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  75. World Health Organization. 2021. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on Covid-19 – 8 January 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Eurasia Group. 2020. Ending the Covid-19 pandemic: The need for a global approach. November 25.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hotez, P.J. 2021. Preventing the next pandemic. Vaccine diplomacy in a time of anti-science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. GAVI. 2021. Covax Facility; Our World in Data. 2021. Coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccinations..

    Google Scholar 

  79. Safi, M. 2021. WHO platform for pharmaceutical firms unused since pandemic began. The Guardian, January 22; Billette de Villemeur, E., V. Dequiedt, and B. Versaevel. 2021. Pool patents to get Covid-19 vaccines and drugs to all. Nature 591: 529.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Thompson, A.K., K. Faith, J.L. Gibson, and R.E.G. Upshur. 2006. Pandemic influenza preparedness. An ethical framework to guide decision-making. BMC Medical Ethics 7: 12.

    Google Scholar 

  81. UNESCO. 2020. Statement on Covid-19: Ethical considerations from a global perspective. Paris, March 26; European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. 2020. Statement on European solidarity and the protection of fundamental rights in the Covid-19 pandemic, April 2.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Dawson, A., E.J. Emanuel, M. Parker, M.J. Smith, and T.C. Voo. 2020. Key ethical concepts and their application to Covid-19 research. Public Health Ethics 13 (2): 127–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Vatican Covid-19 Commission/Pontifical Academy for Life. 2020. Vaccine for all. 20 points for a fairer and healthier world. December 29; Sahm, S. 2021. “Vaccine for all” – Prüfstein globaler Bioethik. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ethik 67: 201–206.

    Google Scholar 

  84. This is the definition of solidarity provided by Dawson, Emanuel, Parker, Smith, and Voo, Key ethical concepts and their application to Covid-19 research, 128.

    Google Scholar 

  85. West-Oram, P.G.N., and A. Buyx. 2017. Global health solidarity. Public Health Ethics 10 (2): 212–224.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ten Have, Global bioethics, 216–218; Jennings, B., and A. Dawson. 2015. Solidarity in the moral imagination of bioethics. Hastings Center Report 45 (5): 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ten Have, H. 1993. Physicians’ priorities – Patients’ expectations. In: Solidarity, justice and health care priorities, edited by Szawarski, Z., and D. Evans. Linköping: Linköping University, 42–52.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Deutscher Ethikrat. 2020. Solidarity and responsibility during the coronavirus crisis. Berlin, 27 March, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Phillips, T. 2021. Political chaos and poverty leave a continent at virus’s mercy. The Guardian, May 2; Pagliarini, A. 2021. Latin America’s lack of a united front on Covid has had disastrous consequences. The Guardian, April 23; See also: Litewska, S.G., and J.D. Moreno. 2021. Covid-19 in Argentina and the abuse of bioethics. The Hastings Center, May 20.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Brown, G., and D. Susskind. 2020. International cooperation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36 (S1): S64–S76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Jennings, and Dawson, Solidarity in the moral imagination of bioethics, 31–32.

    Google Scholar 

  92. West-Oram, and Buyx, Global health solidarity, 213.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ho, A., and I. Dascalu. 2020. Global disparity and solidarity in a pandemic. Hastings Center Report 50 (3): 65–67; Venkatapuram, S. 2020. Covid-19 and the global ethics freefall. The Hastings Center, March 19; Ravitsky, V. 2020. Post-Covid bioethics. The Hastings Center, May 20; Heilinger, J-C., S. Venkatapuram, M. Voss, and V. Wild. 2020. Bringing ethics into the global coronavirus response. The Hastings Center, June 22.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Brands, H., and F.J. Gavin, eds. 2020. Covid-19 and world order. The future of conflict, competition, and cooperation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  95. “There is going to be nothing normal anywhere about the rest of this century… we can look forward to a continual, and accelerating series of crisis that will knock us off balance again and again.” McKibben, B. 2020. The end of the world as we know it. Times Literary Supplement July 31: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Žižek, S. 2020. Pandemic! Covid-19 shakes the world. New York: Polity Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  97. Schwab, K., and T. Malleret. 2020. Covid-19: The great reset. Cologny/Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  98. “…calamity can be an occasion for making intolerable social conditions visible – and for reforming them.” Witt, J.F. 2020. American contagions. Epidemics and the law from smallpox to Covid-19. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 140.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Horton, The Covid-19 catastrophe, 118 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Horton, The Covid-19 catastrophe, 126.

    Google Scholar 

  101. “… we will have to learn to live in a viral world, a new way of living will have to be painfully reconstructed.” Žižek, Pandemic!, 118.

    Google Scholar 

  102. “Troubled times could also lead to an extension of empathic consciousness – ‘we’re all in this together’ – as we heighten our sensitivity to each other’s common plight.” Rifkin, J. 2009. The empathic civilization. The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press, 590.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Cipoletta, S., and M. C. Ortu. 2020. Covid-19: Common constructions of the pandemic and their implications. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 29 (4): 340–356; Komesaroff, P.A. 2020. Not all bad: Sparks of hope in a global disaster. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17: 515–518.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Baldwin, Fighting the first wave, 101.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Sample, I., and P. Walker. 2021. Covid response ‘one of the UK’s worst ever public health failures.’ The Guardian, October 12.

    Google Scholar 

  106. KPMG. 2021. Dit zijn de lessen van 1,5 jaar coronacrisis. KPMG Health, October 14.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Schinkel, W. 2021. Het Nederlandse coronabeleid is een vorm van necropolitiek. NRC, July 26.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Christakis, N.A. 2020. Apollo’s arrow. The profound and enduring impact of coronavirus on the way we life. New York, Boston and London: Little, Brown Spark; Calvert, J., and G. Arbuthnott. 2021. Failures of state. The inside story of Britain’s battle with coronavirus. London: Mudlark; Baldwin, Fighting the first wave; Wright, L. 2021. The Plague year. America in the time of Covid. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Windsor, L.C., G.Y. Reinhardt, A.J. Windsor, et al. 2020. Gender in the time of Covid-19: Evaluating national leadership and Covid-19 fatalities. PLoS One 15 (12): e0244531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. See, for example, Calvert, and Arbuthnott, Failures of state.

    Google Scholar 

  111. The indifference of ruling powers to protect human lives and their failures to respond adequately to the pandemic has been called “social murder.” Abbasi, K. 2021. Covid-19: Social murder, they wrote – elected, unaccountable, and unrepentant. British Medical Journal 372: n314; Rosenthal, M.S., and A. Caplan. 2021. Why we need a Covid-19 commission. The Hastings Center, March 3; Rosenthal, M.S., and A. Caplan. 2021. How to make it right: Covid reparations. The Hastings Center, March 15.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Baldwin, Fighting the first wave, 116.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Universal usage of face masks could have saved nearly 100,000 lives in the United States alone. Peeples, L. 2020. What the data say about wearing face masks. Nature 586: 186–189.

    Google Scholar 

  114. The genome sequence had already been identified by a Chinese laboratory at the beginning of January but Chinese authorities prohibited its publication. Voormolen, S. 2020. De eerste noodkreten kwamen rond Kerst. Die gingen in de doofpot. NRC, 19–20 December; Calvert, and Arbuthnott, Failures of state, 30 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Horton, The Covid-19 catastrophe, 41 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Davey, M. 2020. WHO warns Covid-19 pandemic is ‘not necessarily the big one.’ The Guardian, December 29.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response. 2021. Covid-19: Make it the last pandemic.

    Google Scholar 

  118. “The world needs a new international system for pandemic preparedness and response, and it needs one fast, to stop future infectious disease outbreaks from becoming catastrophic pandemics.” The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response. 2021. Covid-19: Make it the last pandemic. A summary, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  119. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response, Covid-19: Make it the last pandemic.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Rechel, B. 2019. Funding for public health in Europe in decline? Health Policy 123 (1): 21–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Couto, M. 2020. A message from the pangolins. Times Literary Supplement, August 7: 11; Pfeiffer, J., and R.R. Chapman. 2019. NGOs, austerity, and universal health coverage in Mozambique. Globalization and Health 15, 0.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Jambroes, M., T. Nederland, M. Kaljouw, et al. 2016. Implications of health as ‘the ability to adapt and self-manage’ for public health policy: A qualitative study. European Journal of Public Health 26 (3): 412–416; Baldwin, Fighting the first wave, 170 ff; Witt, American contagions.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Jennings, B. 2020. Beyond the Covid crisis – A new social contract with public health. The Hastings Center.

    Google Scholar 

  124. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response, Covid-19: Make it the last pandemic; Grange, Z.L., T. Goldstein, C.K. Johnson, et al. 2021. Ranking the risk of animal-to-human spillover for newly discovered viruses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118 (15): e2002324118.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Hinchliffe, S. 2015. More than one world, more than one health: Re-configuring interspecies health. Social Science & Medicine 129: 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. At the global level, it implies cooperation between the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, and the Food and Agricultural Organization. Jerolmack, C. 2013. Who’s worried about turkeys? How ‘organisational silos’ impede zoonotic disease surveillance. In Pandemics and emerging infectious diseases. The sociological agenda, edited by Dingwal, R., L. M. Hoffman, and K. Staniland. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 33–45; Chien, Y-J. 2013. How did international agencies perceive the avian influenza problem? The adoption and manufacture of the ‘One World, One Health’ framework. In Pandemics and emerging infectious diseases. The sociological agenda, edited by Dingwal, R., L.M. Hoffman, and K. Staniland. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 46–58; Thoradeniya, T., and S. Jayasinghe. 2021. Covid-19 and future pandemics: A global systems approach and relevance to SDGs. Globalization and Health 17: 59.

    Google Scholar 

  127. For this point, see Hinchliffe, More than one world, more than one health.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Spicer, N., I. Agyepong, I. Ottersen, A. Jahn, and G. Ooms. 2020. “It’s far too complicated”: Why fragmentation persists in global health. Globalization and Health 16 (1): 60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response, Covid-19.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Gostin, L.O., S. Moon, and B.M. Meier. 2020. Reimagining global health governance in the age of Covid-19. American Journal of Public Health 110 (11): 1615–1619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Campbell, L. 2021. Global treaty needed to protect states from pandemics, say world leaders. The Guardian, March 30; Editorial. 2021. Learn from Covid before diving into a pandemic treaty. Nature 592; 165–166.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Venkatapuram, S., and A.C. Zielinska. 2021. Covid vaccine patent waivers are for health sovereignty. The Hastings Center, June 1.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Brown, G., and D. Susskind. 2020. International cooperation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36: S64–S76; Rutkow, L. 2020. Origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and the path forward. A global public health policy perspective. In Covid-19 and world order. The future of conflict, competition, and cooperation, edited by H. Brand, and F.J. Gavin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 93–113.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Wenham, C. 2021. What went wrong in the global governance of covid-19? British Medical Journal 372: n303: Wilson, K., S. Halabi, and L.O. Gosting. 2020. The International Health Regulations (2005), the threat of populism and the Covid-19 pandemic. Globalization and Health 16: 70; Maxmen, A. 2021. Why did the world’s pandemic warning system fail when Covid hit? Nature 589: 499–500.

    Google Scholar 

  135. World Health Organization. 2009. Global health risks. Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks, 24. Geneva: WHO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Zwart, H. 2020. Emerging viral threats and the simultaneity of the non-simultaneous: Zooming out in times of Corona. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23: 589–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Sulaman, M., X. Long, and M. Salman. 2020. COVID-19 pandemic and environmental pollution: A blessing in disguise? Science of the Total Environment 728: 138820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Pontifical Academy for Life. 2020. Humana communitas in the age of pandemic: Untimely meditations on life’s rebirth. Vatican City, July 22, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Brands, and Gavin, eds., Covid-19 and world order.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Grabowski, D.C. 2021. The future of long-term care requires investment in both facility- and home-based services. Nature Aging 1: 10–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Cohen, J., and Y. van der Meulen Rodgers. 2020. Contributing factors to personal protective equipment shortages during the Covid-19 pandemic. Preventive Medicine 141: 106263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Žižek, S. 2020. Pandemic! Covid-19 shakes the world. New York: Polity Press, 42 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Gustafsson, L. 2020. Covid-19 highlights problems with our generic supply chain. The Commonwealth Fund, May 7.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Nolen, S. 2021. Merck will share formula of its Covid pill with poor countries. New York Times, October 27.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Emanuel, E.J., A. Buchanan, S.Y. Chan, et al. 2021. What are the obligations of pharmaceutical companies in a global health emergency? Lancet 398: 1015–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Johnson, S. 2021. Big pharma fuelling human rights crisis over Covid vaccine inequity – Amnesty. The Guardian, September 22.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Newton, P.N., K.C. Bond, et al. 2020. Covid-19 and risks to the supply and quality of tests, drugs, and vaccines. The Lancet Global Health 8 (6): e754–e755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Editorial. 2020. Europe must think more globally in crafting its pandemic response. Nature 587: 329; Clemens, T., and H. Brand. 2020. Will Covid-19 lead to a major change of the EU Public Health mandate? A renewed approach to EU’s role is needed. The European Journal of Public Health 30 (4): 625–626.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Inglesby, T. 2020. Make pandemics lose their power. In Covid-19 and world order. The future of conflict, competition, and cooperation, edited by H. Brands, and F.J. Gavin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Calvert, and Arbuthnott, Failures of state, 9, 279, 309, 340.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics, Anahuac University, Mexico City, Mexico

    Henk ten Have

Authors
  1. Henk ten Have
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

ten Have, H. (2022). Bioethics After Covid. In: The Covid-19 Pandemic and Global Bioethics. Advancing Global Bioethics, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91491-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation