File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

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

TitleThree for me and none for you? An ethical argument for delaying COVID-19 boosters
Authors
KeywordsCOVID-19
ethics
resource allocation
Issue Date15-Jun-2022
PublisherBMJ 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/356968
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 3.3
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.952
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJecker, NS-
dc.contributor.authorLederman, Z-
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-23T08:52:42Z-
dc.date.available2025-06-23T08:52:42Z-
dc.date.issued2022-06-15-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Ethics, 2022, v. 48, p. 662-665-
dc.identifier.issn0306-6800-
dc.identifier.urihttp://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.languageeng-
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Medical Ethics-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectCOVID-19-
dc.subjectethics-
dc.subjectresource allocation-
dc.titleThree for me and none for you? An ethical argument for delaying COVID-19 boosters-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/medethics-2021-107824-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85153959594-
dc.identifier.volume48-
dc.identifier.spage662-
dc.identifier.epage665-
dc.identifier.eissn1473-4257-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000722679100001-
dc.identifier.issnl0306-6800-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats