Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Bioethics. 2021 May;35(4):348-355. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12858. Epub 2021 Feb 8.
The rapid development of vaccines against COVID-19 represents a huge achievement, and offers hope of ending the global pandemic. At least three COVID-19 vaccines have been approved or are about to be approved for distribution in many countries. However, with very limited initial availability, only a minority of the population will be able to receive vaccines this winter. Urgent decisions will have to be made about who should receive priority for access. Current policy in the UK appears to take the view that those who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 should get the vaccine first. While this is intuitively attractive, we argue that there are other possible values and criteria that need to be considered. These include both intrinsic and instrumental values. The former are numbers of lives saved, years of life saved, quality of the lives saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and possibly others including age. Instrumental values include protecting healthcare systems and other broader societal interests, which might require prioritizing key worker status and having dependants. The challenge from an ethical point of view is to strike the right balance among these values. It also depends on effectiveness of different vaccines on different population groups and on modelling around cost-effectiveness of different strategies. It is a mistake to simply assume that prioritizing the most vulnerable is the best strategy. Although that could end up being the best approach, whether it is or not requires careful ethical and empirical analysis.
译文:
新冠疫苗的快速发展是一项巨大的成就,为结束全球大流行带来了希望。至少有三种新冠疫苗已在许多国家获得批准或即将获得批准用于分发。然而,由于最初的供应量非常有限,今年冬天只有少数人能够接种疫苗。因此,必须紧急决定谁应优先获得疫苗接种。英国目前的政策似乎认为,最容易感染新冠病毒的人应首先接种疫苗。虽然这在直观上很有吸引力,但我们认为,还需要考虑其他可能的价值观和标准。这些价值观和标准既包括内在价值和工具价值。前者是挽救的生命数量、挽救的生命年限、挽救的生命质量、质量调整生命年(QALY),以及可能包括年龄在内的其他指标。工具价值包括保护医疗保健系统和其他更广泛的社会利益,这可能需要优先考虑关键工人的地位和有家属。从伦理角度来看,挑战在于在这些价值观之间取得适当的平衡。它还取决于不同疫苗对不同人群的有效性,以及不同策略的成本效益建模。简单地假设优先考虑最脆弱的人群是最佳策略是错误的。尽管这最终可能成为最佳方法,但事实是否如此,需要进行仔细的伦理和实证分析。