2026-06-14T03:33:17Zhttps://repisalud.isciii.es/rest/oai/request

oai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/236102024-11-29T04:53:31Zcom_20.500.12105_15322com_20.500.12105_2051col_20.500.12105_16967

00925njm 22002777a 4500 dc Verd, Sergio author 2023 Sometimes, when a public health disaster strikes, mandatory freedom-limiting restrictions must be enforced in order to save lives. During the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, the customary and necessary exchange of ideas in academia drastically changed in most countries, and the absence of debate on the restrictions enforced became evident. Now that the pandemic seems to be drawing to an end, the aim of this article is to spark clinical and public debate on the ethical issues concerning pediatric COVID-19 mandates in an attempt to analyze what happened. With theoretical reflection, and not empirical inquiry, we address the mitigation measures which proved detrimental to children despite being beneficial to other segments of the population. We focus on three key points: (i) the sacrifice of fundamental children's rights for the greater good, (ii) the feasibility of cost-benefit analyses to make public health decisions and restrictions which affect children, and (iii) to analyze the impediments to allowing children's voices to be heard concerning their medical treatment. Verd S. Children First, a Debate on the Restrictions to Tackle COVID-19. Children. 2023 Jan 25;10(2):211. 10.3390/children10020211 2227-9067 Children http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13003/18535 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/23610 Children First, a Debate on the Restrictions to Tackle COVID-19