Hastings Cent Rep. 2022 Sep;52(5):8-14. doi: 10.1002/hast.1416.
For much of 2021, allocating the scarce supply of Covid-19 vaccines was the world's most pressing bioethical challenge, and similar challenges may recur for novel therapies and future vaccines. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) identified three fundamental ethical principles to guide the process: maximize benefits, promote justice, and mitigate health inequities. We argue that critical components of the recommended protocol were internally inconsistent with these principles. Specifically, the ACIP violated its principles by recommending overly broad health care worker priority in phase 1a, using being at least seventy-five years of age as the only criterion to identify individuals at high risk of death from Covid-19 during phase 1b, failing to recommend place-based vaccine distribution, and implicitly endorsing first-come, first-served allocation. More rigorous empirical work and the development of a complete ethical framework that recognizes trade-offs between principles may have prevented these mistakes and saved lives.
在 2021 年的大部分时间里,分配稀缺的新冠疫苗供应是全球最紧迫的生物伦理挑战,而新型疗法和未来疫苗可能会再次面临类似的挑战。在美国,疾病控制与预防中心免疫实践咨询委员会(ACIP)确定了三个基本的伦理原则来指导这一过程:最大化利益、促进公正和减轻健康不平等。我们认为,推荐方案中的关键部分与这些原则存在内在矛盾。具体来说,ACIP 在第 1a 阶段建议过于广泛的医护人员优先接种,在第 1b 阶段仅将至少 75 岁作为确定新冠病毒死亡高风险人群的唯一标准,未能建议基于地点的疫苗分配,并且默认支持先到先得的分配方式,这些都违反了其原则。更严格的实证工作和制定一个完整的伦理框架,承认原则之间的权衡取舍,可能会避免这些错误并拯救生命。