The webinar series ‘Ethics of the COVID-19 pandemic’ is hosted by the Nordic Committee on Bioethics (NCBio). Since September 2020, four different webinars have been conducted from Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. The featured experts from each country have presented their analysis and assessment of ethical dilemmas involving the Nordic governments’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Iceland has managed the pandemic well
The latest webinar from Iceland featured Professor of Philosophy Vilhjálmur Árnason of the University of Iceland.
In his assessment, Iceland has weathered the pandemic relatively well, thanks to credible experts in epidemiology and emergency preparedness leading the way. Discussions with the public have been productive, which Professor Árnason considers the primary reason for the high degree of confidence in the authorities. Iceland, in contrast to many other countries, has been able to avoid comprehensive shutdowns and extensive restrictions on its citizens’ freedoms. Iceland has also benefitted from having a small population living on an island.
“The Icelandic authorities,” he says, “have not faced as many ethical dilemmas during the pandemic as other countries have, for example when it comes to prioritising patients in intensive care.”
Norway’s vaccine prioritisations gave rise to ethical considerations
Who should be first in line for vaccines? This question has brought up ethical issues in Norway discussed by Professor Emerita of Medical Ethics Reidun Førde in the webinar from Norway earlier this year. She was a member of the expert committee that last year advised the government on how to prioritise vaccinations. She points out that the committee had to consider many unanswered questions before making its recommendations.
“First and foremost, we discussed which values should form the basis for our assessments. Next we discussed the objectives of vaccination, in particular reducing the number of fatalities and seriously ill. We settled upon recommending three prioritised groups at the front of the queue.”
Those recommendations were the subject of extensive media attention in Norway and initially provoked criticism from e.g. health care personnel and economists. But overall, the authorities’ vaccine strategy and prioritisations have been well received.
Sweden’s strategy is based on volunteerism
Swedish authorities have taken a different approach to managing the pandemic than the other Nordic countries.
Professor Emeritus Göran Collste of Linköping University was the main speaker in the webinar broadcast from Sweden. He has this to say about the Swedish approach to combatting the COVID-19 pandemic:
”In Sweden we have pursued a strategy based on volunteerism, whereas the other Nordic countries opted to shut down last spring. There were a variety of political and strategic choices made based on judging what would be most effective for the least spread of infection and the saving of human lives, but the choices also have underlying ethical aspects.”
Finland’s crisis communication
Professor of Philosophy Matti Häyry of Finland’s Aalto University questioned his country’s communication with the public during the pandemic. From an ethical perspective, he found it problematic that the authorities did not explain how the various decisions had been reached. Although measures and factual information were communicated promptly and clearly, there was little mention of the ethical basis for the actions taken.
Click here to watch the entire webinar series in English on YouTube.
