I've been going over these questions in my mind for months and I thought it would be interesting to get people's opinions.
I imagine that for most of us, the COVID vaccines in our areas are being given out based on priority. Essential workers, old people, people with comorbidities are being given various levels of priority. The priority rules aren't always perfectly tailored, but I think we can all agree that generally make some sense.
First, I'm making a couple of assumptions. You may disagree with my assumptions and that's fine, but I need these to properly frame the question.
Given: It is unethical to cut the line in an illegal manner by lying about your job or conditions or bribing your way into a clinic, etc.
Given: It is ethical to accept a vaccine you are legally offered even if you don't need it as much as others who do not have access. For example, if you're a 22 year old healthy back-office administrator in a hospital, it is ethical for you to accept the vaccine since you work for a hospital (assuming that's what the rules stipulate) even though you don't deal with patients and are at almost no risk for severe COVID outcomes.
Okay, with that in mind, here are some gray areas:
1. Is it ethical to take a job for the sole purpose of achieving vaccine priority. For example, if you can volunteer 8 hours a week as a back room administrator in the hospital to legally get vaccine eligibility, it is ethical to do so? Does that change if you volunteer for a patient-facing position such as a nurse's aide?
2. Is it ethical (forget whether it's smart) to put yourself in a position to be eligible based on comorbidity? Assume you need to weigh 200 pounds to have a 30 BMI and thus be eligible based on obesity and you weigh 195. Is it okay to eat 30 ounces of steak and 3 pints of ice cream a day for a couple of weeks to push yourself over 200 pounds?
What if you weigh 194 and you drink a gallon of water before walking into the doctor's office so you can tip the scales at 202 and get a letter of eligibility, but once you're done peeing, you'll be back to 194.
What say you?
@sh76
It’s basically a triage issue. More people need treatment than resources are available. In an open society, a fair distribution of scarce resources presumes a high degree of trust in the people and institutions which dispense the resources and a low degree of corruption in the system. When people start bending the rules to get themselves recategorized, in order to receive a benefit they would not otherwise have qualified for, it is essentially the same thing as gerrymandering an election.
@moonbus saidIs there a certain amount of rule-bending that you would consider acceptable?
@sh76
It’s basically a triage issue. More people need treatment than resources are available. In an open society, a fair distribution of scarce resources presumes a high degree of trust in the people and institutions which dispense the resources and a low degree of corruption in the system. When people start bending the rules to get themselves recategorized, in order to re ...[text shortened]... d not otherwise have qualified for, it is essentially the same thing as gerrymandering an election.
What about driving 35 in a 30 zone?
@sh76 saidIt's indisputable that it's unethical to receive any benefit (including vaccines) from lying. And I don't believe it is unethical to put yourself in a position to qualify to get a shot (get a job as an Uber driver).
I've been going over these questions in my mind for months and I thought it would be interesting to get people's opinions.
I imagine that for most of us, the COVID vaccines in our areas are being given out based on priority. Essential workers, old people, people with comorbidities are being given various levels of priority. The priority rules aren't always perfectly tailored, ...[text shortened]... nd get a letter of eligibility, but once you're done peeing, you'll be back to 194.
What say you?
But I believe it is bad policy to create a system to be gamed. Thus, I would have fewer priorities and allow everyone instead to be eligible to be vaccinated. It simply prevents all the discussions of why teachers who teach from home or janitors at a hospital get priority over people who interact with others but don't work in a medical field. But perhaps, even though I benefitted from the current system, I object to the fact the government created favored and non-favored categories.
@sh76 saidIt depends on both how rare or difficult that vaccine is to obtain, and if you rejecting the vaccine makes any difference in how soon a priority person receives theirs. The Biden Administration ordered a few hundred million vaccines, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue a non-priority person to get one.
Given: It is ethical to accept a vaccine you are legally offered even if you don't need it as much as others who do not have access. For example, if you're a 22 year old healthy back-office administrator in a hospital, it is ethical for you to accept the vaccine since you work for a hospital (assuming that's what the rules stipulate) even though you don't deal with patients and are at almost no risk for severe COVID outcomes.
Plus, with over half a million COVID-related deaths, it may be unethical for certain people not to get one. If you're a single parent of young children, is it ethical to risk your own death by turning down a vaccine that was legally offered to you?
@moonbus saidI actually think it is very difficult to not bend rules. If your doctor says you qualify for a shot but you think you wouldn't have should you question him/ her? get a second opinion? ignore their advice? Doctors themselves have an incentive to bend rules to get their patients priority cases because everyone (unless you are specifically contraindicated) is better off if they get a priority.
@sh76
It’s basically a triage issue. More people need treatment than resources are available. In an open society, a fair distribution of scarce resources presumes a high degree of trust in the people and institutions which dispense the resources and a low degree of corruption in the system. When people start bending the rules to get themselves recategorized, in order to re ...[text shortened]... d not otherwise have qualified for, it is essentially the same thing as gerrymandering an election.
@vivify saidThe vaccine is becoming more and more available, at least in the US. Within 4-6 weeks, the vaccine seems like it will be available practically on a walk-in basis in most of the country.
It depends on both how rare or difficult that vaccine is to obtain, and if you rejecting the vaccine makes any difference in how soon a priority person receives theirs. The Biden Administration ordered a few hundred million vaccines, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue a non-priority person to get one.
Plus, with over half a million COVID-related deaths, it may be ...[text shortened]... ren, is it ethical to risk your own death by turning down a vaccine that was legally offered to you?
In January and February it was different, though. Vaccines were then a scarce resource and many people were faced with very difficult ethical choices. It only meant an extra 2-3 months of immunity, but that mattered to many people.
FWIW, given the imprecision of the rules and the greater good of vaccinating as many people as possible, I'm in favor of doing whatever is necessary to put yourself in position where you can get the vaccine by telling the truth.
This may steer the thread, but this idea is another reason I think the middle-European suspension of the AZ vaccine (even though just for a few days in some places) in the middle of a spike is the worst application of the precautionary principle I've ever seen.
@sh76 saidFor the police, fire, or rescue squad, with lights and sirens, rushing to a shooting, fire, or other emergency, not a problem. For others, when children are about, highly irresponsible.
Is there a certain amount of rule-bending that you would consider acceptable?
What about driving 35 in a 30 zone?
@moonbus said35 in a 30 is "highly irresponsible"?
For the police, fire, or rescue squad, with lights and sirens, rushing to a shooting, fire, or other emergency, not a problem. For others, when children are about, highly irresponsible.
Congrats, man. You're the most square dude on Earth.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI wonder what the profile would be of someone who would be scared off from taking the vax because it was being rushed that will be mollified by this pause.
I'm not saying there are zero people in this group (there will surely be some), but I'd wonder at its size.
