Streiffer Robert, Killoren David, Chappell Richard Y
University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison WI USA.
Melbourne Australia.
J Appl Philos. 2021 Jul;38(3):479-496. doi: 10.1111/japp.12492. Epub 2021 Feb 8.
We explore the ethics of deliberately exposing consenting adults to SARS-CoV-2 to induce immunity to the virus ('DEI' for short). We explain what a responsible DEI program might look like. We explore a consequentialist argument for DEI according to which DEI is a viable harm-reduction strategy. Then we consider a nonconsequentialist argument for DEI that draws on the moral significance of consent. Additionally, we consider arguments for the view that DEI is unethical on the grounds that, given that large-scale DEI would be highly likely to result in some severe illnesses and deaths, DEI amounts to a form of killing. Our thesis is that incorporating a DEI program alongside the status quo 'calibrate the curve' responses could have significant advantages at the early stages of pandemics. These potential advantages mean that, at a minimum, research into DEI would have been justified early in the COVID-19 pandemic and that DEI programs should be explored as potential additions to our overall approach to emerging pandemics in the future.
我们探讨故意让自愿的成年人接触严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)以诱导对该病毒的免疫力(简称为“DEI”)的伦理问题。我们解释一个负责任的DEI计划可能是什么样的。我们探讨一种支持DEI的后果主义论点,根据该论点,DEI是一种可行的减少伤害策略。然后我们考虑一种支持DEI的非后果主义论点,该论点借鉴了同意的道德意义。此外,我们考虑一些观点的论据,即认为DEI是不道德的,理由是鉴于大规模的DEI极有可能导致一些严重疾病和死亡,DEI相当于一种杀人形式。我们的论点是,在大流行的早期阶段,将DEI计划与现有的“校准曲线”应对措施相结合可能具有显著优势。这些潜在优势意味着,至少在2019冠状病毒病大流行早期,对DEI进行研究是合理的,并且未来应将DEI计划作为我们应对新出现大流行的整体方法的潜在补充进行探索。