File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107824
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85153959594
- WOS: WOS:000722679100001
- Find via

Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Three for me and none for you? An ethical argument for delaying COVID-19 boosters
| Title | Three for me and none for you? An ethical argument for delaying COVID-19 boosters |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Keywords | COVID-19 ethics resource allocation |
| Issue Date | 15-Jun-2022 |
| Publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| Citation | Journal of Medical Ethics, 2022, v. 48, p. 662-665 How to Cite? |
| 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. |
| Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/356968 |
| ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 3.3 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.952 |
| ISI Accession Number ID |
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Jecker, NS | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Lederman, Z | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-06-23T08:52:42Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-06-23T08:52:42Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2022-06-15 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Medical Ethics, 2022, v. 48, p. 662-665 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0306-6800 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/356968 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | <p>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.</p> | - |
| dc.language | eng | - |
| dc.publisher | BMJ Publishing Group | - |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Medical Ethics | - |
| dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
| dc.subject | COVID-19 | - |
| dc.subject | ethics | - |
| dc.subject | resource allocation | - |
| dc.title | Three for me and none for you? An ethical argument for delaying COVID-19 boosters | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1136/medethics-2021-107824 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85153959594 | - |
| dc.identifier.volume | 48 | - |
| dc.identifier.spage | 662 | - |
| dc.identifier.epage | 665 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1473-4257 | - |
| dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000722679100001 | - |
| dc.identifier.issnl | 0306-6800 | - |
