fbpx Ethical issues in national pandemic influenza plans | Science in the net

Ethical issues in national pandemic influenza plans

Primary tabs

di ASSET Project
Pubblicato il 03/10/2016
Read time: 2 mins
Ethics and science

Article published on the ASSET website

Influenza pandemics are unpredictable but recurring events that can have severe consequences on human health and socio-economic life to global level. For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended all countries to prepare a pandemic influenza plan following its own guidelines. The WHO guidance, revised in 2009, stresses the importance of ethical principles such as equity, liberty, solidarity and states that any measure limiting the individual rights and the civil liberties (such as isolation and quarantine) must be necessary, reasonable, proportional, equitable, not discriminatory, and not in violation of the national and international laws. For such purposes, WHO has developed a framework of detailed ethical considerations in order to ensure that overall concerns (such as protecting human rights and the special needs of vulnerable and minority groups) are addressed in pandemic influenza planning and response.

Experts from the ASSET project conducted a study on this issue, performing a semantic analysis of national pandemic plans developed by ten European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries and by Switzerland, member of European Free Trade Association (EFTA), including EU and WHO documents.

The analysis has been based on two keyword lists: in a first, generic, list, keywords represent areas of possible ethical interest; in a second, more specific, list, keywords are more precisely related to ethical issues actually addressed in each national pandemic plan. Aim of the research was to assess and compare the occurrence rates of each keyword within both lists, in order to evaluate the relevance of ethical issues and the application of ethical principles in the development of national preparedness and response plans. The semantic analysis showed little concern for ethical aspects and a lack of discussion on ethical issues in most pandemic plans developed from European countries, except for Switzerland, United Kingdom, Czech Republic and France. This is even more relevant since the analysis revealed multiple areas of possible ethical interest within the different plans.

Despite this work has some limits it may represent a useful tool to guide future drafters of pandemic plans. It aims at encouraging debate on the necessity to update all national pandemic plans including ethical and other SiS issues, such as gender and participatory governance, which have proved to be of great relevance in case of epidemics and pandemics.


Scienza in rete è un giornale senza pubblicità e aperto a tutti per garantire l’indipendenza dell’informazione e il diritto universale alla cittadinanza scientifica. Contribuisci a dar voce alla ricerca sostenendo Scienza in rete. In questo modo, potrai entrare a far parte della nostra comunità e condividere il nostro percorso. Clicca sul pulsante e scegli liberamente quanto donare! Anche una piccola somma è importante. Se vuoi fare una donazione ricorrente, ci consenti di programmare meglio il nostro lavoro e resti comunque libero di interromperla quando credi.


  • 9071 reads

prossimo articolo

Why science cannot prove the existence of God

di Hykel Hosni
di Angelo Vulpiani
Pubblicato il 04/10/2024

The demonstration of God's existence on scientific and mathematical grounds is a topic that, after captivating thinkers like Anselm and Gödel, reappears in the recent book by Bolloré and Bonnassies. However, the book makes a completely inadequate use of science and falls into the logical error common to all arguments in support of so-called "intelligent design."

In the image: detail from *The Creation of Adam* by Michelangelo. Credits: Wikimedia Commons. License: public domain

Social sciences

The demonstration of God's existence on rational grounds is a subject tackled by intellectual giants, from Anselm of Canterbury to Gödel, including Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant. However, as is well known, these arguments are not conclusive. It is not surprising, then, that this old problem, evidently poorly posed, periodically resurfaces.