Korean | English

pISSN : 2005-8284 / eISSN : 2234-3598

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 1.31
Home > Explore Content > All Issues > Article List

2021, Vol.24, No.2

  • 1.

    The Ethics of COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation

    FANG Yin-Hua | KIM Ock-Joo | 2021, 24(2) | pp.121~137 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    Border controls and social distancing have proven effective in containing the spread of COVID-19, but the current pandemic will not end until herd immunity is achieved through the widespread use of vaccines. Given the importance of vaccines in overcoming this global health crisis, and the current imbalance between their supply and demand, ethical questions arise concerning how COVID-19 vaccines should be distributed. This article argues that the guiding objectives for the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines should be the reduction of inequality and the maximization of benefits through the use of clear and transparent criteria for vaccine prioritization. Allocating scarce medical resources such as vaccines is a long-term ethical challenge. Only an ethically sound and well-coordinated vaccine distribution plan can ensure fair access for those in need.
  • 2.

    Ethical Issues in the French Vaccination Campaign Against COVID-19

    Joetegu | 2021, 24(2) | pp.139~158 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    Thanks to COVID-19 vaccines that developed earlier than expected, the end of long Coronavirus era seems to be in sight. However, the vaccination news from all across the world tells us that Coronavirus vaccinations are a matter of order, unlike prevention. In particular, right after the French vaccination campaign launched on December 27th, 2020, the confusion and chaos shown in its early stage of the French vaccination campaign require a close examination since their vaccination strategy was based on the ethical value of respect for human dignity. In the initial French vaccination plan, their vaccine prioritization criteria were established based on, first of all, saving lives. They tried to maximize the liberty of the individual by ensuring patient autonomy in its execution. The values that the French vaccination campaign based on were fundamental and universal human values that everyone could agree on. Thus, the confusion shown in the French vaccination campaign raises the following question: “In a crisis like a global pandemic, does emphasizing the universal values only delay or worsen the existing crisis situation?” In this paper, we analyze the initial French vaccination campaign and reveal the underlying ethical assumptions. Then we track the later revisions of the campaign and evaluate them. Finally, we conclude with the answer to the upper mentioned question.
  • 3.

    Social Responsibilities of Health Care Professionals during the COVID- 19 Pandemic: Avoiding Privacy Infringements and the Stigmatization of Patients

    Moon Jae Young | Hye Yoon Park | Choi Eunkyung | 2021, 24(2) | pp.159~170 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    This article explores the social responsibilities of healthcare professionals (HCPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially those concerning the stigmatization of individuals and the infringement of privacy. In the context of public health crises like the current COVID-19 pandemic, HCPs have the dual responsibility of respecting the rights and interests of individuals and at the same time protecting and promoting public health. While contact-tracing is considered an essential public health tool, it can conflict with the rights and interests of individuals. Furthermore, the fact that exposure to infectious diseases can lead to social stigmatization and discrimination complicates efforts to protect public health during infectious disease outbreaks. The tension between respecting the rights and interests of individuals and protecting public health requires the careful attention of HCPs. This article argues for the development and implementation of ethical frameworks or models concerning the dual responsibilities of HCPs in the context of infectious disease outbreaks.
  • 4.

    A Study on Family Members’ Experiences of Loss Before the Death of a Terminal Cancer Patient

    Won Kyung Chang | AHN Kyongjin | 2021, 24(2) | pp.171~188 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    In South Korea, the loss, sorrow, and grief experienced by patients’ family members in the period from the diagnosis of terminal cancer to the passing of the patients and thereafter have not been studied systematically. The present study, which addresses this gap in existing research, reexamined the in-depth interview data collected from family members caring for terminal cancer patients. The data was analyzed using a phenomenological methodology with a view to uncovering the aspects of anticipatory grief that are present in the social and cultural context of South Korea. Study participants tended to avoid exposing their grief to the dying family member and to ignore the imminent death. In the process of palliative care, they expressed existential, emotional, and relational dimensions of grief. Some of the study participants reported that in the process of caring for a sick family member, changes arose in their perception of, and attitudes toward, life and death. In addition, the study found significant aspects of the anticipatory grief in that participants also received comfort from their relationship with the dying family member, and they expressed strong feelings of resentment toward, and dissatisfaction with, the attending physicians. It is hoped that these findings will contribute to more informed approaches to death education for patients, their family members, and physicians.
  • 5.

    The System for Making Decisions to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: Results of a 2020 National Survey

    LEE EUNYOUNG | HEO Jea Yeong | TAE Hyoi Jin and 1other persons | 2021, 24(2) | pp.189~220 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    Since 2019, the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the National Agency for Management of Life-Sustaining Treatment has been conducting surveys of public awareness of the system for making decisions to forego life-sustaining treatment (LST). The purpose of these surveys is to ascertain public awareness of the system and to identify ways to improve it. In 2020, for the first time since the system’s implementation, a survey was conducted on those who used either Registry Agencies for Advance Directives or medical institutions with ethics committees established according to the system for making decisions to forego LST. The mobile user survey of 1,426 people was conducted from November 2 to 23, 2020. In this article, we derive five policy suggestions based on the survey results: (1) A public education program on the end of life should be developed; (2) Systematic consumer-tailored public relations strategies should be implemented to better promote the system. (3) Registry agencies and medical institutions should be encouraged to increase user accessibility to the system; (4) Counseling aids, such as explanatory materials and various information delivery tools, should be provided for better decision-making on LST; and (5) A communication channel should be opened with the public.
  • 6.

    Policy Suggestions for Institutional Bioethics Committees: Based on the U.S. Single IRB Mandate in the Revised Common Rule

    Eunjoo Chung | KIM Myung-Hee | Sujin Baik | 2021, 24(2) | pp.221~244 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    In accordance with the recent revision of the Common Rule (Subpart A of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s regulations for the protection of human subjects in research at 45 CFR 46), the use of single IRB has become mandatory for cooperative research in the U.S. Thus, interest has grown in operating alternative IRB models, including central IRBs and/or joint IRBs. However, since the single IRB mandate has risks as well as benefits, such revision should be carefully considered before adopting it. Accordingly, this study examined the institutional changes and progress of the U.S. research ethics review system, the efforts that have been made to avoid inefficiencies caused by duplicate reviews for multi-center cooperative research, and the single IRB-related policies and regulations that have been enacted or revised thereafter. Additionally, this study compared the differences between the regulations and guidelines in the Korean Good Clinical Practice (KGCP) and those in the Bioethics and Safety Act. On the basis of this examination, it is argued that before a single IRB review model is adopted in Korea, it is necessary for all relevant parties to conduct a full review of the current responsibilities of researchers and institutions under existing laws and regulations and to determine how those responsibilities would be shared in the event of a single IRB review model.