| Abstract [eng] |
Master's thesis of Ieva Radvilė Kasiliauskaitė, supervisor Dr Vilma Lukaševičienė, Department of Public Health, Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Vilnius University, Department of Public Health, Public Health Studies Programme, 2nd year, 2022. Goal: To assess the ethical challenges of allocating scarce health care resources in emergencies and to identify ethical issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research methods. The method of quantitative research chosen for the study is a questionnaire survey. Data analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics methods. The data were processed using the SPSS 15.0 software package for data collection and statistical analysis. Research outcomes. The survey results showed that the highest participation rate was among people aged under 30. Respondents would prefer to rely on the opinion of expert scientists to obtain a favourable response from health departments in the face of frightening conditions such as the COVID-19 pandemic situation, with the highest proportion of 45.69% (n=191) of the participants and 43.20% (n=181) of the advisory committees; one third of the participants having suffered from a COVID-19 infection, which clearly statistically defines the ethical inequalities in our prevailing society. p=0,009.; Conclusions. 1. Respondents had an unfavourable view of the COVID-19 pandemic. 51.44% (n=215) of respondents thought that the decisions that were taken due to the limited health care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic were not made in a coherent way, both economically and socially. More than half of the individuals identified vulnerable groups: pregnant women and underage children (p>0.05) when allocating and deciding on the appropriate allocation of resources (p>0.05); 2. The challenges of ethical issues, or inequalities, were reflected in the personal experiences of the interviewees. One third of the participants had a COVID-19 infection, which clearly defines statistically the ethical inequalities in our prevailing society. p=0,009. 3. When comparing the interests of society and the allocation of scarce resources in emergencies, based on the ethical rules formulated by Emanuel and Persad, we can say that respondents pay attention to the following criteria as mentioned in the literature: To save as many lives as possible: the resources should be allocated in a way that saves as many people as possible, with the aim of trying to provide treatment to all as far as possible - score of 6 (47% n=196). The distribution of opinion was even and the difference was not statistically significant at p=0.736, where (p>0.05). Those who also had COVID-19 and were treated at home showed a statistically significantly more favourable perception of the pandemic situation - χ2=0.201; lss=1; p=0.62. |
