Re: vaccine prioritization during a pandemic

Engineers are part of life-evaluating decisions as well. They could
make an expensive modification to an auto that will statistically save a
few lives in accidents, but then fewer people can buy that auto, and
marketwise, it may be cheaper to pay a few lawsuits for preventable
deaths than pay the millions to install the device -- and the market
influences the decision. This thinking may be forced on us in our
worldly lives, but I can't imagine trying to baptize this as Christian
(or anti-Christian) thought. We are to be wise as serpants but
innocent as doves. These have to coexist even in a Christian.

Can you imagine the Apostle Paul reacting to this? "To live is Christ,
to die is gain" --- win-win situation for him; I imagine him giving up
his immunization dose so the poor hopeless bloke beside him could get
blessed with it (what ethical dilemma?). And if you tried to corner
him (Paul) about "which" poor hopeless bloke ought to get it, well, it
would be interesting to see what he would say to that. But I bet that
he would put forward his own choices as a model for other Christians.
I.e. -- by de-centralizing the ultimate importance of this life for
himself, he would, by extension, commend the same course of action to
all Christians. Suddenly "society engineering" ethical games are left
to those who place their hope in this life/world only. Of course, this
is to ignore our stewardship responsibilities which I don't advocate at
all. Christians ought not to abandon this world in their other-worldly
enthusiasm, so I guess that still leaves me scratching my head about
which other bloke ought to get the shot. But being willing to
surrender ones own rights is a clear start. Can you imagine western
Christians thinking like this today? I wonder if it will snow
you-know-where?

--merv

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

> 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
> <mailto: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/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
Received on Thu May 18 18:10:20 2006