перед тем как читать статью доктора Robin Scott, но кое-что почитать таки можно и бесплатно :) |
For individual health professionals considering civil disobedience, much needs to be weighed. In a Viewpoint this week, Hayley Bennett and colleagues provide a framework to guide such decisions. Their criteria emphasise the importance of the situation being unjust and a risk to health, and that the action should be a last resort, with a good chance of being effective, and involve minimal harm. Historical examples show how civil disobedience can be successful. But is not without risk to careers and reputations. Health professionals have occupied government buildings to protest nuclear armament and secure patient access to HIV medicines; provided illegal needle exchanges to protect drug users; and defied border security laws by obstructing the detention of asylum seekers. In each case, ethical responsibilities outweighed legal duties, and civil disobedience became a justified means to secure the necessary health action.
But what are the red lines for health professionals? Civil disobedience must be strictly non-violent with no harm to other people. And it must be public, fully using the stature and the voice of the health professional to bring attention to and press action for improved health, equity, and human rights. Civil disobedience can be a legitimate health-care practice, and it must be supported.
1 comment:
Depression and post-traumatic stress during major social unrest in Hong Kong: a 10-year prospective cohort study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33160-5/
Should health professionals participate in civil disobedience in response to the climate change health emergency?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32985-X/
Post a Comment