Three for me and none for you? An ethical argument for delaying COVID-19 boosters

Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (10):662-665 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper argues in support of the WHO’s proposal to forego COVID-19 booster shots until 10% of people in every country are fully vaccinated. The Ethical Argument section shows that we save the most lives and ensure the least amount of suffering by allocating doses first to unvaccinated people. It also argues that there is a duty to support decent lives and to promote health equity, which establish that refraining from boosters is a requirement of justice, not charity. The Replies to Objections section answers objections that appeal to pragmatism, nationalism, ownership, scientific advancement, self-interest, semantics and futility. The Conclusion section emphasizes that for now, wealthy nations should not boost vaccinated people’s immunity and should instead send doses to poorer nations where they are most urgently needed. No data was used in this study.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

COVID-19 Vaccination and the Right to Take Risks.Pei-hua Huang - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48:534-537.
Anthropocentrism and Egoism.John Nolt - 2013 - Environmental Values 22 (4):441-459.
Good News for the Logical Autonomy of Ethics.Scott Hill - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (2):277-283.
How Not to Refute Ethical Egoism.L. Burkholder - 1974 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 3 (4):653 - 657.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-09-28

Downloads
20 (#747,345)

6 months
14 (#168,878)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nancy Jecker
University of Washington