The Medical School, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2012 Dec;38(12):765-7. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100750. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
In a recent paper, Hugh McLachlan argues from a deontological perspective that the most ethical means of distributing scarce supplies of an effective vaccine in the context of an influenza pandemic would be via an equal lottery. I argue that, even if one accepts McLachlan's ethical theory, it does not follow that one should accept the vaccine lottery. McLachlan's argument relies upon two suppressed premises which, I maintain, one need not accept; and it misconstrues vaccination programmes as clinical interventions targeted solely at protecting the health of vaccinated individuals, rather than as public health interventions targeted at protecting the health of the population as a whole.
在最近的一篇论文中,休·麦克拉克伦(Hugh McLachlan)从道义论的角度出发,认为在流感大流行的背景下,分配稀缺有效疫苗的最合乎道德的方法是通过平等的抽签。我认为,即使人们接受了麦克拉克伦的伦理理论,也不一定就要接受疫苗抽签。麦克拉克伦的论点依赖于两个被掩盖的前提,而我认为,人们不必接受这些前提;而且,它错误地将疫苗接种计划视为仅针对保护接种者健康的临床干预措施,而不是作为针对整个人群健康的公共卫生干预措施。