Wilson James
University College London, Philosophy Department, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Vaccine. 2014 Dec 12;32(52):7179-83. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.10.009. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
This paper provides an examination of the ethics of disease eradication policies. It examines three arguments that have been advanced for thinking that eradication is in some way ethically exceptional as a policy goal. These are (1) global eradication has symbolic importance, (2) disease eradication is a global public good and (3) disease eradication is a form of rescue. It argues that none of these provides a good reason to think that individuals have special duties to facilitate eradication campaigns, or that public health authorities have special permissions to pursue them. But the fact that these arguments fail does not entail that global disease eradication is ethically problematic, or that it should not be undertaken. Global eradication of a disease, if successful, is a way of providing an enormous health benefit that stretches far into the future. There is no need to reach for the idea that there is a special duty to eradicate disease; the same considerations that are in play in ordinary public health policy--of reducing the burden of disease equitably and efficiently--suffice to make global disease eradication a compelling goal where doing so is feasible.
本文探讨了疾病根除政策的伦理问题。它审视了三种观点，这些观点认为根除作为一项政策目标在某种程度上具有伦理特殊性。它们分别是：（1）全球根除具有象征意义；（2）疾病根除是一种全球公共利益；（3）疾病根除是一种救援形式。本文认为，这些观点都没有提供充分理由使人相信个人有特殊义务去推动根除运动，或者公共卫生当局有特殊许可去开展这些运动。但这些观点不成立这一事实并不意味着全球疾病根除存在伦理问题，或者不应该进行。如果成功，全球根除一种疾病是一种能带来深远健康益处的方式。无需诉诸存在根除疾病的特殊义务这一观点；普通公共卫生政策中所涉及的公平且高效减轻疾病负担的同样考量，足以使全球疾病根除在可行的情况下成为一个极具说服力的目标。
