Social group "65 plus": Pandemic's ethical dilemma

Background: The conditions of the emergency create an unprecedented, but legitimate approach, when the rights and freedoms of the individual can be limited in the public interest. From the first days of the pandemic, a special social group of the population began to stand out, with the code name "65+".

Aim: to give an ethical assessment of the attitude of society to the population group "65+", to show the contradiction between medical and bioethical approaches to the criteria for selecting a group.

Materials and methods: The review of fundamental and modern works in the problem field was carried out. The empirical basis of the work was the materials of a sociological survey using Google forms (N = 520).

Results: According to the analysis of statistical indicators of employment in the Russia before the pandemic (2019), the share of employees aged 60–64 years was 32,4 %, in the range of 65–69 years – 13,7% of the size of the age group, which indicates the high social activity of the 65+ group (approximately every third or fourth pensioner continues to work) and demonstrates the labor potential of the group. At the same time, anti-epidemic measures related to restrictions on labor and social activity primarily affected this group, which led to stigmatization based on the age criterion. The long-term confrontation with the pandemic has weakened the psychological tactics of treating older patients that have not been fully developed in the national health care, based on the ethics of care. A survey of medical students (aged 21–24) conducted in March 2021 showed that the majority (82,8 %) of respondents viewed restrictions as unacceptable discrimination.

Conclusion: The review of updated research and the analysis of the current situation have shown that the phenomenon of the aging of the nation and the vulnerability of the older age group of the population to a new coronavirus infection have led to a contradiction in approaches to the considered age group from the standpoint of medicine and bioethics. The inherently humane measure of protection for a group that is especially vulnerable in terms of medical indicators began to be perceived by the society as a reason for stigmatization. The solution to the dilemma is possible in the context of the convergence of medical and human sciences in the interdisciplinary problem field of gerontology and geriatrics.