ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026
Ethics and Inequities in the Context of Urgency : A Qualitative Study With Stakeholders on COVID-19 Decision-Making in Germany and Israel.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Urgent decision-making during the early COVID-19 pandemic raised complex ethical challenges, in particular concerning how to reach and include marginalized populations. To examine these issues, we conducted a qualitative study based on twenty-three semi-structured interviews with pandemic decision-makers and representatives of marginalized populations in Germany and Israel, focusing on decisions made in 2020 before vaccines were available. Key ethical themes emerged, including decision-making with ethical relevance under intense time pressure, the dominance of biomedical framings often at the expense of social considerations, inadequate attention to populations in bio-psycho-socially vulnerable positions, and the exclusion of stakeholders from decision-making processes. These findings have critical normative significance, highlighting issues of justice in the distribution of burdens and benefits, underscoring the importance of epistemic humility in acknowledging uncertainty and diverse forms of expertise, and affirming the moral obligation to integrate considerations of psycho-social vulnerabilities into public health. To inform future policy, we recommend establishing equitable governance structures to ensure broader stakeholder representation, implementing inclusive communication strategies to reach marginalized groups, and strengthening ethically informed crisis preparedness. Such measures can better align urgent public health decision-making with principles of justice, protection from harm, inclusion, and moral responsibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42565963What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.