The race against COVID-19 has been intense and painful and many of us are now looking for a way to move on. We may try to seize a degree of comfort and security by convincing ourselves that we are among the “fittest”—that is, among those who have managed to survive—who can now hope for a “new-normal” time, relatively unscathed. But this isn’t what we should be hoping for. Our world, and ourselves, will never be free of COVID-19 or its insidious (...) effects. COVID-19, like climate change, is a threat multiplier and the challenges it has raised are now indelibly engraved in our vulnerable, interconnected lives. Rather than vainly hoping for a return to an imaginary, erstwhile “normal” what we need is something more fundamental: a new version of hope that embraces a courage to learn what we need to do, to enable us to live a future to which we aspire. Perhaps counter-intuitively, we need to accept that the COVID-19 experience has already changed us deeply and hope that we can learn from this and from the future changes that the pandemic will give rise to. We need to radicalize our responses to the challenges, enabling ourselves to learn new lessons about old but increasingly pertinent topics, such as the realities of human fragility, and inter-connection. (shrink)

In this paper I analyse the implications of “flattening” the curve for long-term care residents in the Province of Ontario, Canada during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic. I then question what the role of healthcare systems are in the response to public health emergencies and problematize their status as entities in need of protection. The ethical implications of this are discussed in light of potential challenges raised by climate change.

Kolbe and de Melo-Martin (2023) raise important concerns about the limited usefulness of measures of moral distress. They propose that moral distress is best measured in terms of “illegitimate inst...

In many high-income countries, an initial response to the severe impact of Covid-19 on residential care was to shield residents from outside contacts. As the pandemic progressed, these measures have been increasingly questioned, given their detrimental impact on residents’ health and well-being and their dubious effectiveness. Many authorities have been hesitant in adapting visiting policies, often leaving nursing homes to act on their own safety and liability considerations. Against this backdrop, this article discusses the appropriateness of viewing the continuation of (...) the practice of shielding as a moral failure. This is affirmed and specified in four dimensions: preventability of foreseeable harm, moral agency, moral character, and moral practice (in MacIntyre’s sense). Moral character is discussed in the context of prudent versus proportionate choices. As to moral practice, it will be shown that the continued practice of shielding no longer met the requirements of an (inherently moral) practice, as external goods such as security thinking and structural deficiencies prevented the pursuit of internal goods focusing on residents’ interests and welfare, which in many places has led to a loss of trust in these facilities. This specification of moral failure also allows a novel perspective on moral distress, which can be understood as the expression of the psychological impact of moral failure on moral agents. Conclusions are formulated about how pandemic events can be understood as character challenges for healthcare professionals within residential care, aimed at preserving the internal goods of residential care even under difficult circumstances, which is understood as a manifestation of moral resilience. Finally, the importance of moral and civic education of healthcare students is emphasized to facilitate students' early identification as trusted members of a profession and a caring society, in order to reduce experiences of moral failure or improve the way to deal with it effectively. (shrink)