Introduction
Pandemic influenza poses a great risk to the entire world. The disease originates from the emergence and quick spread of influenza viruses. In essence, these viruses can spread rapidly and explosively in numerous nations, thus, affecting billions of individuals. The pandemic can affect the country’s critical infrastructure as well as social and economic security if there is no adequate preparedness for as well as response to it. The pandemic affects the countries’ economies through raising their health care costs as well as causing significant loss of productivity. It is vital to note that successful preparedness for and response to the pandemic influenza calls for a shared responsibility between the private sector and the governments. The use of drugs and vaccines is essentially the basis for pandemic influenza preparedness. Consequently, the present paper delves into the ethical approach of the United States, Norway, United Kingdom, and Switzerland to the distribution of vaccines and drugs in the event of a pandemic.
During the occurrence of an epidemic, the demand for vaccines and drugs usually outweighs the supply. In point of fact, every patient has an equal right to their desired health care under the ideal circumstances. Nonetheless, a pandemic changes the patients’ opportunities for access to health care as a result of limited resources as well as the burden of mass sickness. The policy makers in different countries are required to make tough decisions in the event of a pandemic due to the grave ethical issues that typically arise. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services (1), the effective distribution of pandemic influenza vaccine plays a significant role in both averting influenza and decreasing its adverse impacts on health as well as the society when a pandemic occurs. Thus, countries have an obligation to ensure that the distributive decisions they make in the event of a pandemic facilitate effective allocation of influenza vaccines and drugs.
In the United States, it is ethically appropriate to vaccinate some individuals before the others to lessen both the societal and health effects of a pandemic (US Department of Health and Human Services 14). In particular, the people who are at the high risk of suffering the severe adverse health effects of death or hospitalization in the event the influenza viruses infect them are given priority in getting the influenza drugs and vaccines in the United States. The people who are vital to the public safety provision, functioning of the society’s fundamental aspects and health care provision also get priority in the allocation of drugs and vaccines in this country (Kinlaw and Levine 3). Consequently, the United States' thinking represent the utilitarian ethical model since it aims at producing the greatest good for a greater percentage of the population. In essence, the vaccination of some individuals in the U.S. in an attempt to decrease the societal and health effects of pandemic aims at producing the greater good for the majority of the Americans.
In Norway, specific groups are given priority when it comes to the distribution of drugs and vaccines in an event of a pandemic. These include the healthcare specialists, the patients suffering from the chronic illnesses, and the people with the highest likelihood for the further avoidance of influenza (Jakubowski and Pelaseyed 18). Just like the United States’ thinking, Norway’s thinking represent the utilitarian ethical model. According to the utilitarian approach, the most ethical approach is the one, which leads to the greatest good for the majority (Kurtz and Burr 252). The distribution of influenza drugs and vaccines initially to the individuals mentioned above in Norway is an ethical decision, which leads to the greatest good for the majority of the citizens.
In the United Kingdom, every individual matters equally in the distribution of vaccines and drugs during a pandemic. In fact, Jakubowski and Pelaseyed (15) maintains that the UK CEAPI settled for a comprehensive principle of respect and equal concern. The policy makers and other concerned persons in this country apply the principle of fairness when deciding how to distribute vaccines and drugs in the event of a pandemic. It is clear that the United Kingdom’s thinking represent a justice or fairness ethical model. In particular, their decision aims at distributing harms and benefits in an impartial and equitable manner.
Among the goals of pandemic influenza preparedness in Switzerland include the preservation of life, maintenance of public order, and minimization of the number of victims (Jakubowski and Pelaseyed 17). The ethical approach to this country to the distribution of drugs and vaccines in the occurrence of a pandemic is the fairness approach. In other words, there are no specific people who are given priority in the distribution of influenza vaccines and drugs in Switzerland. Consequently, just like the United Kingdom’s thinking, Switzerland’s thinking represent the fairness or justice ethical model.
If the four countries as described above find themselves in a position to need to work together to allocate resources they will experience ethical challenges. In particular, there will be ethical challenges regarding the rationing of the limited resources. The countries will experience an ethical dilemma in distributing the meager resources equitably. In essence, the differences in these countries’ ethical approaches to the distribution of resources would worsen the situation. In fact, the ethical approach utilized by the United States and Norway is different from that utilized by the United Kingdom and Switzerland. Consequently, the ethical dilemma regarding the allocation of limited resources will be hard to resolve. In an attempt to resolve these challenges, the four countries should seek the services of ethics experts to help them find an ethical approach that will facilitate a fair allocation of resources.
In conclusion, the United States, and Norway employ the utilitarian ethical approach to the distribution of drugs and vaccines in the occurrence of a pandemic while the United Kingdom and Switzerland employ the justice or fairness approach. Consequently, the former countries’ distribution of the influenza drugs and vaccines aims at producing the greatest good for the majority of their citizens while the latter countries aim at distributing social costs as well as social benefits across the spectrums of their societies.
Works Cited
Jakubowski, Elke, and Shouka Pelaseyed. Eleventh futures forum on the ethical governance of pandemic influenza preparedness. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, 2008.
Kinlaw, Kathy, and Robert Levine. "Ethical guidelines in pandemic influenza." (2007).
Kurtz, Pat, and Ronald L. Burr. "Ethics and health." Community Health Nursing: Caring for the Public's Health (2001): 234.
US Department of Health and Human Services. "Guidance on allocating and targeting pandemic influenza vaccine." (2007).
