Beyond Good and Bad: Rethinking Solidarity and Coercion in Public Health.

AbstractWe often use certain terms as if, in using them, they contain a decided moral judgment of an action. Especially in public health ethics, this is not always the case, as shown most starkly by recent (mis)use of the terms “solidarity” and “coercion” to label, and thereby judge, public health a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:American Journal of Bioethics pp. 1 - 15
Autores principales: Johnson, Tess, Abdool Karim, Safura, Silva, Diego S.
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Taylor & Francis Ltd Feb2026
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=191917929&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 191917929
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        15265161
        FKZ
      jtl: American Journal of Bioethics
      issn: 15265161
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2026
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
      place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        191917929
        10.1080/15265161.2026.2632018
        191917929
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 14
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Beyond Good and Bad: Rethinking Solidarity and Coercion in Public Health.
      aug:
        au:
          Johnson, Tess
          Abdool Karim, Safura
          Silva, Diego S.
        affil: Ethox Centre University of Oxford
      sug:
      ab: AbstractWe often use certain terms as if, in using them, they contain a decided moral judgment of an action. Especially in public health ethics, this is not always the case, as shown most starkly by recent (mis)use of the terms “solidarity” and “coercion” to label, and thereby judge, public health actions responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyze the terms solidarity and coercion, and argue that they cannot be used alone as moral judgements of public health actions. Rather, they are better considered as descriptive terms that are merely frequent proxies for normative terms such as justice or utility. We illustrate our argument by reference to three case studies: school reopenings in the USA, mandatory isolation measures in the UK, and vaccine distribution within the EU.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N