Wiśniowska Karolina, Żuradzki Tomasz, Ciszewski Wojciech
Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics, Jagiellonian University, Grodzka Street 52, Kraków, Poland.
Institute of Philosophy & Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics, Jagiellonian University, Grodzka Street 52, Kraków, Poland.
J Law Biosci. 2022 Sep 26;9(2):lsac026. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsac026. eCollection 2022 Jul-Dec.
With the limited initial availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the first months of 2021, decision-makers had to determine the order in which different groups were prioritized. Our aim was to find out what normative approaches to the allocation of scarce preventive resources were embedded in the national COVID-19 vaccination schedules. We systematically reviewed and compared prioritization regulations in 27 members of the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Israel. We differentiated between two types of priority categories: groups that have increased infection fatality rate (IFR) compared to the average for the general population and groups chosen because their members experience increased risk of being infected (ROI). Our findings show a clear trend: all researched schedules prioritized criteria referring to IFR (being over 65 years old and coexisting health conditions) over the ROI criteria (eg occupation and housing conditions). This is surprising since, in the context of treatment, it is common and justifiable to adopt different allocation principles (eg introducing a saving more life-year approach or prioritizing younger patients). We discuss how utilitarian, prioritarian, and egalitarian principles can be applied to interpret normative differences between the allocation of curative and preventive interventions.
在2021年的头几个月,由于新冠疫苗最初的供应量有限,决策者们必须确定不同群体的优先接种顺序。我们的目的是找出各国新冠疫苗接种计划中所蕴含的稀缺预防资源分配的规范方法。我们系统地审查并比较了欧盟27个成员国、英国和以色列的优先排序规定。我们区分了两种优先类别:与普通人群平均水平相比感染死亡率(IFR)增加的群体,以及因其成员感染风险(ROI)增加而被选定的群体。我们的研究结果显示出一个明显的趋势:所有研究的接种计划都将与IFR相关的标准(65岁以上和并存健康状况)置于ROI标准(如职业和住房条件)之上。这令人惊讶,因为在治疗方面,采用不同的分配原则(如引入挽救更多生命年的方法或优先考虑年轻患者)是常见且合理的。我们讨论了功利主义、优先主义和平等主义原则如何应用于解释治疗性和预防性干预分配之间的规范差异。