Ethics and the Flu
May 4, 2009
The fear of a worldwide pandemic has gripped the nation and has been recently the major topic in print, broadcast and Internet media. Some think that we are witnessing an irrational frenzy or the results of media hype. Fear is most often not rational.
A real ethical dilemma, should we have a pandemic, will be making the decision of who is going to get help, assuming that our supply of vaccines would not be sufficient for all the population. How do you allocate vital limited resources?
The ultimate goal in a situation that has no perfect solution is to do the utmost to reduce for the greatest number of people the negative impact of the flu.
When facing an ethical dilemma it is always helpful to think of the values that are involved. I would think that the predominant value is fairness in a situation that by definition is unfair.
What should be the criteria to make that determination? Those criteria would apply for any situation where vital resources are limited.
Let us first eliminate some of the criteria that should not be taken into consideration.
- Gender
- Social standing
- Religion
- Citizenship
There are at least two criteria I think we should we should consider.
- Vulnerability: People the most vulnerable that might have a greater probability of dying from the flu should be helped first such as children and the elderly.
- Profession: People that are in essential social services and public safety such as healthcare providers, firemen, sanitation workers and the police.
Some have suggested implementing a system of random selection to determine who gets the vaccine. I think it would be morally questionable to do so because it is shifting the moral burden of the decision to chance. Issues of life and death should not be decided by a lottery.
As Edward W. Howe, the naturalist and author once wrote: “A boy doesn’t have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn’t like pie when he sees there isn’t enough to go around.”
Comments (1)
May 13th, 2009 at 3:47 pm Posted by Yoel Weisshaus
The only way there can be ethics in businesses and governments when it comes to distributing something as important as a vaccine for the flu is if ethical principles are applies systematically. US courts have been failing on ethics for many years because judges and lawyers rarely disclose their conflict of interests such as fraternity groups, previous relationships, or their biased opinions and beliefs before listening or taking a case. If we keep failing to disclose our conflict of interests then it will be impossible for a fair distribution of vaccines to take place.
Post Your Comment
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)