Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Visiting Professorial Fellow in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J Bioeth Inq. 2021 Dec;18(4):609-619. doi: 10.1007/s11673-021-10148-6. Epub 2021 Dec 23.
We discuss whether and under what conditions people should be allowed to choose which COVID-19 vaccine to receive on the basis of personal ethical views. The problem arises primarily with regard to some religious groups' concerns about the connection between certain COVID-19 vaccines and abortion. Vaccines currently approved in Western countries make use of foetal cell lines obtained from aborted foetuses either at the testing stage (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines) or at the development stage (Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine). The Catholic Church's position is that, if there are alternatives, Catholic people have a moral obligation to request the vaccine whose link with abortion is more remote, which at present means that they should refuse the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. We argue that any consideration regarding free choice of the vaccine should apply to religious and non-religious claims alike, in order to avoid religion-based discrimination. However, we also argue that, in a context of limited availability, considering the significant differences in costs and effectiveness profile of the vaccines available, people should only be allowed to choose the preferred vaccine if: 1) this does not risk compromising vaccination strategies; and 2) they internalize any additional cost that their choice might entail. The State should only subsidize the vaccine that is more cost-effective for any demographic group from the point of view of public health strategies.
我们讨论了人们是否应该并且在什么条件下可以根据个人的伦理观点来选择接种哪种 COVID-19 疫苗。这个问题主要涉及到一些宗教团体对某些 COVID-19 疫苗与堕胎之间联系的担忧。目前在西方国家获得批准的疫苗,无论是在测试阶段(辉瑞/生物科技和 Moderna 疫苗)还是在开发阶段(牛津/阿斯利康疫苗),都利用了源自堕胎胎儿的胎儿细胞系。天主教会的立场是,如果有替代方案,天主教徒有道德义务要求与堕胎关系更疏远的疫苗,这意味着他们目前应该拒绝接种牛津/阿斯利康疫苗。我们认为,任何关于疫苗自由选择的考虑都应该适用于宗教和非宗教的主张,以避免基于宗教的歧视。然而,我们也认为,在供应有限的情况下,考虑到现有疫苗在成本和效果方面的显著差异,如果:1) 这不危及疫苗接种策略;并且 2) 他们内化了他们的选择可能带来的任何额外成本,那么人们应该只被允许选择首选疫苗。从公共卫生策略的角度来看,国家只应补贴对任何人群都具有更高成本效益的疫苗。