Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42565963›Full record

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.

Verina Wild, Sylvia Agbih, Keren Landsman, Quintus Sleumer, Angus Dawson, Jan-Christoph Heilinger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Verina WildInstitute for Ethics and History of Health in Society (IEHHS), Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstr. 2, 86159, Augsburg, Germany. verina.wild@uni-a.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3012-7662
Sylvia AgbihInstitute for Ethics and History of Health in Society (IEHHS), Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstr. 2, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.
Keren LandsmanInstitute for Ethics and History of Health in Society (IEHHS), Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstr. 2, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.
Quintus SleumerInstitute for Ethics and History of Health in Society (IEHHS), Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstr. 2, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.
Angus DawsonCentre for Biomedical Ethics (CBmE), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Jan-Christoph HeilingerChair of Moral and Political Philosophy, University of Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58455, Witten, Germany.

Funding

Volkwagenstiftung 9A995
6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Decision-makingGermany and IsraelPandemic ethicsQualitative researchSocial inequalities

Identifiers

PMID42565963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.