Background Equal access to healthcare is a core principle in Norway’s public healthcare system. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged healthcare systems in the early phase – in particular, related to testing and hospital capacity. There is little knowledge on how older people experienced being infected with an unfamiliar and severe disease, and how they experienced the need for healthcare early in the pandemic Aim To explore the experiences of older people infected by COVID-19 and their need for testing and hospitalisation. Research (...) design An explorative and descriptive approach, with qualitative interviews conducted in October 2020. Participants and research context Seventeen participants above 60 years of age hospitalised due to COVID-19 during spring 2020 were recruited 6 months after discharge. Ethical considerations Ethical approval was granted by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in South-Eastern Norway (155425). Findings The main finding was that the informants experienced vulnerability and arbitrariness. This finding was supported by three sub-themes: experiences with a severe and unfamiliar disease, the strict criteria and the importance of someone advocating needs. Discussion Participants described varying access to healthcare. Those who did not meet the national criteria to be tested or hospitalised struggled against the system. Findings reveal arbitrary access to healthcare, in contrast to Norway’s ethical principle of fair and just access to health services. Moreover, to access and receive necessary healthcare, informants were dependent on their next-of-kin’s advocacy. Conclusion Even when dealing with an unfamiliar disease, health professionals’ assessments of symptoms must be performed with an ethical obligation to applicate competent appraisal and the exercise of discernment; this is in line with care ethics and ethical standards for nurses. These perspectives are a significant part of caring and the intension of doing good. (shrink)

From the day on which humans are born they need things. Some of these needs seem “basic,” such as our needs for food, water or shelter. Everybody has these needs. We cannot escape them. We also cannot escape the serious harm that arises when these needs remain unsatisfied. It is thus no wonder that in thinking about what we ought to do some researchers have suggested to first and foremost focus on people's basic needs. Such need‐based theories must answer three (...) main questions: What are basic needs? What are their implications for normative questions? And how can these needs and their satisfaction be measured? Proponents must also defend these theories against objections, such as against the objections that the theories are paternalistic, materialistic, and passivity‐promoting. Depending on their goals and contexts (distributive justice, sustainable development, human rights, etc.), appeals to basic needs may take various different forms. (shrink)

In answering normative questions, researchers sometimes appeal to the concept of basic needs. Their guiding idea is that our first priority should be to ensure that everybody is able to meet these needs—to have enough in terms of food, water, shelter, and so on. This article provides an opinionated overview of basic needs in normative contexts. Any basic needs theory must answer three questions: (1) What are basic needs? (2) To what extent do basic needs generate reasons for action and (...) how are these reasons to be understood? (3) How are basic needs and their satisfaction to be measured? I address these questions in turn. Then I also briefly discuss the theoretical potential of appealing to basic needs in normative contexts. It turns out that future research in this area could benefit from a higher degree of interdisciplinarity and methodological reflection, and that, generally speaking, basic needs theories are more promising than they have often been claimed to be. (shrink)

The notion of vulnerable groups has gained relevance in international legal instruments while being criticised in philosophical literature for its disabling potential and disempowering consequences. The article argues that the category of group vulnerability should not be abandoned, being an opportunity for resistance, visibility, and a place for dissent: vulnerable groups can both function as a sounding board for claims and make demands for recognition, resetting the political agenda and the topics of public debate, and allow the level of collective (...) needs to emerge from the level of individual interests, thereby guaranteeing a fairer distribution of resources. For this purpose, the article provides two definitions of group vulnerability that avoid both the risks of essentialism and of labelling outcomes. The article also analyses the political value of vulnerable groups, highlighting that it is conceivable as an enabling condition, a source of political agency and mobilisation. (shrink)

Dependency functions as a keyword in care theory. However, care theorists have spelled out the ontological and moral ramifications of dependency in different and often conflicting ways. In this article, I argue that conceptual disputes about dependency betray a fundamental discordance among authors, rooted in the empirical premises of their arguments. Hence, although authors appear to share a vocabulary of dependency, they are not writing about quite the same phenomenon. I seek to elucidate these differences by teasing out and comparing (...) different conceptions of dependency found in the literature. Borrowing a phrase from Eva Kittay, I trace four “paradigm cases” of dependency: the infant, the physically disabled person, the profoundly intellectually disabled person, and the refugee. These paradigm cases serve as the empirical touchstone from which theorists extract their conceptions of dependency. Each paradigm case, moreover, permits a particular ethical sensibility toward care. How we understand and value dependency thus seems to determine how we understand and value care, and vice versa. In this way, I contend, our normative orientation toward care might influence what sorts of dependency we see—and, by extension, which forms of dependency we fail to notice. (shrink)

Dependency is fundamental to caring relationships. However, given that dependency implies asymmetry, it also brings moral problems for nursing. In nursing theory and theories of care, dependency tends to be framed as a problem of self‐determination—a tendency that is mirrored in contemporary policy and practice. This paper argues that this problem frame is too narrow. The aim of the paper is to articulate additional theoretical ‘problem frames’ for dependency and to increase our understanding of how dependency can be navigated in (...) practices of long‐term care. It does so by way of an empirical ethical analysis of how care professionals tackle the problem of dependency in group homes for people with intellectual disabilities. The paper refers to these practices of mitigating the problem of dependency as ‘dependency work’, a phrase borrowed from Eva Kittay. The analysis of dependency work suggests that for care professionals, dependency is a threefold problem: one of self‐determination, one of parity and one of self‐worth. These findings suggest that patient autonomy cannot be a full solution to the problem of dependency in long‐term care relations. But they also show that dependency as such is not a problem that can be solved, as attempts to mitigate it only serve to tighten the dependency relationship further. This is the paradox of dependency work. (shrink)

The commons and care are two topics that have gained presence in public and political discourses in recent years and seem to have a special affinity to one another. In this article, I propose that there are two different approaches to the relationship between the commons and care, arguing in favor of one of them: care in common or community care. In this way, I claim that care can be defined as what is done to maintain certain commons, forging the (...) bonds that shape communities according to ethical standards. These standards can be established in accordance with the ethics of care and in continuity with the political tradition of the commons. (shrink)

The ethical dimension of care work is less explored in Chinese long-term care (LTC) settings. This paper accentuates care ethics embodied by direct care workers (DCWs) from an ethnographic study of care at Sunlight Nursing Home in central China. I include the notion of xiao (filial piety) to construe care ethics by engaging both feminist and intersectional approaches. Empirical findings highlight the narrative of mei banfa (‘there is nothing you can do about it’) in revealing the complexity of caregiving in (...) a commercialised environment where both physical and emotional care intertwine. Mei banfa compels DCWs to invoke their agency in care practice despite inadequate support from the nursing home and negative social portrayals of care work. It is a cognitive coping strategy of DCWs to harness their energy in upholding care ethics for both the elderly residents and their own family members. Such commitment is unlikely to be sustained if structural barriers continue to impede the recognition of care labour as part of social production. Arguably, an ethically informed approach to both policymaking and care practice gives voice to human interdependency in care work and affords ways to reimagine a caring future. (shrink)