Politics Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA.
Politics and Feminist Studies, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA.
Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Aug 15;75(Suppl 1):S86-S92. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac361.
Global access to coronavirus vaccines has been extraordinarily unequal and remains an ongoing source of global health insecurities from the evolution of viral variants in the bodies of the unvaccinated. There have nevertheless been at least 3 significant alternatives developed to this disastrous bioethical failure. These alternatives are reviewed in this article in the terms of "vaccine diplomacy," "vaccine charity," and "vaccine liberty." Vaccine diplomacy includes the diverse bilateral deliveries of vaccines organized by the geopolitical considerations of countries strategically seeking various kinds of global and regional advantages in international relations. Vaccine charity centrally involves the humanitarian work of the global health agencies and donor governments that have organized the COVAX program as an antidote to unequal access. Despite their many promises, however, both vaccine diplomacy and vaccine charity have failed to deliver the doses needed to overcome the global vaccination gap. Instead, they have unfortunately served to immunize the global vaccine supply system from more radical demands for a "people's vaccine," technological transfer, and compulsory licensing of vaccine intellectual property (IP). These more radical demands represent the third alternative to vaccine access inequalities. As a mix of nongovernmental organization-led and politician-led social justice demands, they are diverse and multifaceted, but together they have been articulated as calls for vaccine liberty. After first describing the realities of vaccine access inequalities, this article compares and contrasts the effectiveness thus far of the 3 alternatives. In doing so, it also provides a critical bioethical framework for reflecting on how the alternatives have come to compete with one another in the context of the vaccine property norms and market structures entrenched in global IP law. The uneven and limited successes of vaccine diplomacy and vaccine charity in delivering vaccines in underserved countries can be reconsidered in this way as compromised successes that not only compete with one another, but that have also worked together to undermine the promise of universal access through vaccine liberty.
全球获得冠状病毒疫苗的机会极不平等,而且由于未接种疫苗者体内病毒变异的不断出现,仍然是全球健康不安全的一个持续来源。然而,对于这种灾难性的生物伦理失败,至少已经提出了 3 种重要的替代方案。本文从“疫苗外交”、“疫苗慈善”和“疫苗自由”这几个方面对这些替代方案进行了审查。疫苗外交包括各国出于在国际关系中寻求各种全球和地区优势的地缘政治考虑而组织的多样化双边疫苗交付。疫苗慈善主要涉及全球卫生机构和捐助国政府的人道主义工作,它们组织了 COVAX 计划,作为解决不平等获取疫苗问题的一种对策。然而,尽管它们有许多承诺,但疫苗外交和疫苗慈善都未能提供克服全球疫苗接种差距所需的剂量。相反,它们不幸地使全球疫苗供应系统免受对“人民疫苗”、技术转让和疫苗知识产权(IP)强制许可的更激进要求的影响。这些更激进的要求代表了获得疫苗机会不平等的第三种替代方案。作为非政府组织主导和政治家主导的社会正义诉求的混合体,它们是多样化和多方面的,但它们共同呼吁疫苗自由。本文首先描述了疫苗获取不平等的现实,然后比较和对比了迄今为止这 3 种替代方案的有效性。在这样做的过程中,它还提供了一个批判性的生物伦理框架,用于反思这些替代方案在全球知识产权法中根深蒂固的疫苗属性规范和市场结构背景下,是如何相互竞争的。通过这种方式,可以重新考虑疫苗外交和疫苗慈善在向服务不足国家提供疫苗方面取得的不均衡和有限成功,将其视为相互竞争的妥协成功,这些成功不仅相互竞争,而且还共同破坏了通过疫苗自由实现普遍获取的承诺。