Ethics and International Affairs 35 (4):543-562 (2021)

Authors
Cecile Fabre
Oxford University
Daniel Halliday
Stanford University
6 more
Abstract
COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be scarce for years to come. Many countries, from India to the U.K., have demonstrated vaccine nationalism. What are the ethical limits to this vaccine nationalism? Neither extreme nationalism nor extreme cosmopolitanism is ethically justifiable. Instead, we propose the fair priority for residents framework, in which governments can retain COVID-19 vaccine doses for their residents only to the extent that they are needed to maintain a noncrisis level of mortality while they are implementing reasonable public health interventions. Practically, a noncrisis level of mortality is that experienced during a bad influenza season, which society considers an acceptable background risk. Governments take action to limit mortality from influenza, but there is no emergency that includes severe lockdowns. This “flu-risk standard” is a nonarbitrary and generally accepted heuristic. Mortality above the flu-risk standard justifies greater governmental interventions, including retaining vaccines for a country's own citizens over global need. The precise level of vaccination needed to meet the flu-risk standard will depend upon empirical factors related to the pandemic. This links the ethical principles to the scientific data emerging from the emergency. Thus, the FPR framework recognizes that governments should prioritize procuring vaccines for their country when doing so is necessary to reduce mortality to noncrisis flu-like levels. But after that, a government is obligated to do its part to share vaccines to reduce risks of mortality for people in other countries. We consider and reject objections to the FPR framework based on a country: having developed a vaccine, raising taxes to pay for vaccine research and purchase, wanting to eliminate economic and social burdens, and being ineffective in combating COVID-19 through public health interventions.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0892679421000514
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,172
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Famine, Affluence, and Morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3):229-243.
The Problem of Global Justice.Thomas Nagel - 2005 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2):113-147.
National Responsibility and Global Justice.David Miller - 2008 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (4):383-399.
Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy.Michael Blake - 2001 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (3):257-296.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Vaccination Cold War.Jonathan D. Moreno, Judit Sándor & Ulf Schmidt - 2021 - Hastings Center Report 51 (5):12-17.
The Ethical Case for Mandating HPV Vaccination.Michelle J. Bayefsky - 2018 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 46 (2):501-510.
Ethical Considerations for Epidemic Vaccine Trials.Joshua Teperowski Monrad - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (7):465-469.
Feminist Nationalism.Lois West - 1997 - Routledge.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-12-16

Total views
11 ( #855,445 of 2,517,843 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #137,931 of 2,517,843 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes