Pandemic Surveillance and Racialized Subpopulations: Mitigating Vulnerabilities in COVID-19 Apps.
COVID-19
Digital health technologies
Equity
Justice
Pandemic disease surveillance
Racial inequality
Racialized subpopulations
Solidarity COVID-19 apps
Vulnerability
Journal
Journal of bioethical inquiry
ISSN: 1872-4353
Titre abrégé: J Bioeth Inq
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101250741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
accepted:
03
08
2020
pubmed:
26
8
2020
medline:
2
1
2021
entrez:
26
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Debates about effective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have emphasized the paramount importance of digital tracing technology in suppressing the disease. So far, discussions about the ethics of this technology have focused on privacy concerns, efficacy, and uptake. However, important issues regarding power imbalances and vulnerability also warrant attention. As demonstrated in other forms of digital surveillance, vulnerable subpopulations pay a higher price for surveillance measures. There is reason to worry that some types of COVID-19 technology might lead to the employment of disproportionate profiling, policing, and criminalization of marginalized groups. It is, thus, of crucial importance to interrogate vulnerability in COVID-19 apps and ensure that the development, implementation, and data use of this surveillance technology avoids exacerbating vulnerability and the risk of harm to surveilled subpopulations, while maintaining the benefits of data collection across the whole population. This paper outlines the major challenges and a set of values that should be taken into account when implementing disease surveillance technology in the pandemic response.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32840858
doi: 10.1007/s11673-020-10034-7
pii: 10.1007/s11673-020-10034-7
pmc: PMC7445800
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
829-834Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Nat Med. 2020 Apr;26(4):463-464
pubmed: 32284619
Int J Health Serv. 1999;29(2):295-352
pubmed: 10379455
Lancet. 2020 May 30;395(10238):1673-1676
pubmed: 32401716
Arch Med Res. 2020 Jul;51(5):468-470
pubmed: 32381375
Hastings Cent Rep. 2015 Sep-Oct;45(5):31-8
pubmed: 26332108
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015 Jun-Sep;33(2-3):130-47
pubmed: 26507138
Glob Health Action. 2015 Aug 07;8:27969
pubmed: 26257047
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Aug;2(8):e425-e434
pubmed: 32835200
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jul;46(7):427-431
pubmed: 32366705
Nature. 2020 Jun;582(7810):29-31
pubmed: 32467596
J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Dec;17(4):835-839
pubmed: 32840842
Perspect Biol Med. 2018;61(1):90-105
pubmed: 29805150
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 16;383(3):201-203
pubmed: 32374952
Lancet. 2020 Apr 11;395(10231):1194
pubmed: 32246915
Hastings Cent Rep. 2007 Jul-Aug;37(4):32-9
pubmed: 17844922
J Hum Rights Pract. 2016 Jul;8(2):219-238
pubmed: 27617037
Perspect Biol Med. 2018;61(1):76-89
pubmed: 29805149
Nature. 2020 Apr;580(7802):165
pubmed: 32265571
Public Health Ethics. 2017 Jul;10(2):212-224
pubmed: 29731808
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008 Feb;51(2):151-7
pubmed: 18259708
Int J Health Serv. 1992;22(3):429-45
pubmed: 1644507
BMC Med Ethics. 2006 Dec 04;7:E12
pubmed: 17144926