Ethical Dilemmas Spread Along with Flu
Nov 2nd, 2009 • Posted in: NewsVariety of questions center on priorities for vaccine, risk-benefit analyses, and rhetoric about the virus’ danger
VARIOUS DATELINES
As worries over H1N1, otherwise known as the swine flu, spread as quickly as the virus itself, several ethics angles on the story have been featured in the world press. Among the dilemmas:
- Who gets the vaccine first? The Detroit Free Press reports that a shortage of vaccine in Michigan has, according to some flu experts, left patients too frail to stand in long lines vulnerable to the bug. Vaccination priorities differ from county to county, according to the Free Press, leading to confusion over who should be put at the head of the line.
- Is it worth the risk? Risk-benefit arguments are being played out differently on each side of the U.S.-Canadian border, reports Toronto’s Globe & Mail. In Canada, the vaccination contains what is known as an “adjuvant,” a substance that boosts the overall immune response of the person receiving the vaccine. But in the United States, adjuvants are not approved and there is some concern — though, according to the Globe & Mail report, no hard evidence — that adjuvants are linked to a syndrome suffered by Gulf War veterans who received various vaccinations. But there’s more to the story, according to the report: Using adjuvants allows much more rapid production and usage of vaccine, leading to U.S. shortages while Canadian dosages are plentiful, which has in turn reportedly has led some Americans to lie about being pregnant or having an underlying health condition in order to be given high priority in receiving the shots.
- Should the United States donate swine flu vaccine to poor countries before all Americans have been inoculated? As of late last week, the decision appeared to be no, according to a report from the Agence France-Presse. “As vaccine becomes more available, I think evaluation will be made as to when it’s appropriate for donation to begin, but I can tell you at this point the priority is getting the vaccine to citizens in this country, and that’s what we’re working on 24/7,” U.S. Health secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, according to the AFP.
- Is it really a “national emergency?” The Week magazine surveyed press coverage on the issue, noting that the Obama administration’s decision to invoke emergency status is viewed in some quarters as unwarranted alarmist rhetoric. Critics contend that the escalation of tension, combined with vaccine shortages, is a recipe for panic and frustration. Others, such as Boston Herald editor Jules Crittenden, call it an example of politically “covering your behind.” Others, while admitting that the national emergency proclamation may be overblown, say that it’s the only way for the president to bypass red tape that will hinder the fight against the disease.
Sources: AFP, Oct. 29 – Detroit Free Press, Oct. 29 – Globe & Mail, Oct. 28 – The Week, Oct. 26 – Jules Crittenden’s blog, Oct. 25.
For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 19 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 24 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 10 — Related Newsline story, July 20 — Related Newsline story, July 6.
Print This Story
Email This Story
