Re: vaccine prioritization during a pandemic

Consider some possible individual approaches to a vaccine shortfall:
I'll pass up my dose so someone else can have it.
I don't want to live without Al. You have to give him a dose.
I'm so important you have to give me a dose.
I've got the money to buy a dose.
I've got enough money to bribe the source, so I'll get a dose.
I've got a gun. Give me a dose or die.
Etc., etc.
Which do we want to promote, and which prevent?

The problem is that there is not enough vaccine for everyone, so some
process of decision is necessary. Triage on a rational basis is the best
approach. Will everyone agree on the principle applied? Of course not.
There will be more "You killed my Bart who didn't get a dose" than "I'm
devastated by the death of the one I love, but you did the best you
could."
Dave

On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:31:06 -0400 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
It seems to me that with any system of ethics, people dealing with
large-scale disasters have to make choices. We can talk all we want
about the infinite value of a human life but we just don't have infinite
resources, & thus may have to make decisions about who our finite
resources will be used for. Triage is sometimes an unpleasant necessity,
& a refusal to use it may mean more deaths than necessary as sacrifices
to some ethical principles.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu May 18 14:41:52 2006