Re: vaccine prioritization during a pandemic

The problem of the analysis below is the definition of strong and
weak. Take the example of U.N.O.S. Let's say Arnold Schwarzenegger and
I both have failing hearts but his will fail first. On the outside, he
would seem to be much stronger than me. But, who is weak in this
analysis? Arnold is and because of that U.N.O.S. would put him ahead
of me on the list. If AI kills otherwise more robust individuals they
should be considered the weak, also.

If it is truly the case that an AI pandemic is W-shaped then the
proposed allocation strategy would be ethically sound. The kicker is
the shape of the mortality curve is unknown and it is speculation
right now what it would be. Furthermore, we need to announce what the
strategy in advance so that there is confidence that we are not gaming
the system. Here's the real ethical dilemma: if we guess wrong on the
shape of the mortality curve do we change our strategy?

On 5/18/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Of course. In conditions of scarcity, decisions must be made about
> allocation. I'd venture that none of us would be willing to let the market
> make the allocation under these circumstances, and I'd further venture that
> the reason for this has nothing to do with a market failure problem. What
> we're trying to do is make a non-market allocation on some moral basis.
>
> But shying away from the market seems inconsistent with the otherwise
> utilitarian thrust of the current draft policy. Generally, markets are
> better than governments at determining welfare maximization questions.
> Among other things, governments are notoriously ineffecient, subject to
> special interest capture, and often corrupt, all of which increases
> transaction costs and diminishes overall social welfare. If we want to
> allocate the vaccine simply based on aggregate social utility, why not just
> leave it to the market?
>
> The answer must be, I think, that we are intuitively not comfortable with an
> allocation on strictly utilitarian grounds, because those grounds favor the
> wealthy and powerful members of society. What other grounds can we provide?
> Exploring the virtue ethics perspective, what I'd float is the idea of an
> allocation that would exemplify and inculcate virtues such as courage and
> love. This means that perhaps the weaker members of society -- the very
> young and the very old, for example -- should get their doses before the
> stronger members, and that the stronger members should be willing to
> sacrifice their doses to the weaker. Doesn't this sound perhaps a bit more
> like the kind of decision Jesus would make?
Received on Thu May 18 17:35:51 2006