互惠:优先为医护人员接种COVID-19疫苗的理由

Borgar Jølstad, C. Solberg
{"title":"互惠:优先为医护人员接种COVID-19疫苗的理由","authors":"Borgar Jølstad, C. Solberg","doi":"10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.237228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the recent debates on whether to prioritize health care workers for COVID-19 vaccines, two main lines of arguments emerged: one centered on maximizing health and one centered on reciprocity. In this article, we scrutinize the argument from reciprocity. The notions of fittingness and proportionality are fundamental for the act of reciprocating. We consider the importance of these notions for various arguments from reciprocity, showing that the arguments are problematic. If there is a plausible argument for reciprocity during the pandemic, this is most likely one that centers on the risk that health care workers take on while working. We argue that the scope of this argument is not plausibly extended only to health care workers. Other essential workers at risk are in the position to make the same arguments. We also argue that there is no compelling argument from reciprocity that makes reciprocating with vaccines, rather than by other means, necessary. Furthermore, allocating vaccines based on reciprocity will conflict with utility-maximizing. Given the weak state of the arguments, overriding concerns for utility seem unreasonable. ","PeriodicalId":325276,"journal":{"name":"De Ethica","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reciprocity as an Argument for Prioritizing Health Care Workers for the COVID-19 Vaccine\",\"authors\":\"Borgar Jølstad, C. Solberg\",\"doi\":\"10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.237228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During the recent debates on whether to prioritize health care workers for COVID-19 vaccines, two main lines of arguments emerged: one centered on maximizing health and one centered on reciprocity. In this article, we scrutinize the argument from reciprocity. The notions of fittingness and proportionality are fundamental for the act of reciprocating. We consider the importance of these notions for various arguments from reciprocity, showing that the arguments are problematic. If there is a plausible argument for reciprocity during the pandemic, this is most likely one that centers on the risk that health care workers take on while working. We argue that the scope of this argument is not plausibly extended only to health care workers. Other essential workers at risk are in the position to make the same arguments. We also argue that there is no compelling argument from reciprocity that makes reciprocating with vaccines, rather than by other means, necessary. Furthermore, allocating vaccines based on reciprocity will conflict with utility-maximizing. Given the weak state of the arguments, overriding concerns for utility seem unreasonable. \",\"PeriodicalId\":325276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"De Ethica\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"De Ethica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.237228\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"De Ethica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.237228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在最近关于是否优先为卫生保健工作者提供COVID-19疫苗的辩论中,出现了两种主要论点:一种以最大限度地提高健康为中心,另一种以互惠为中心。在本文中,我们从互惠的角度来审视这一论点。适当性和相称性的概念是往复行为的基础。我们考虑这些概念的重要性,从互惠的各种论点,表明论点是有问题的。如果在大流行期间有一个合理的互惠论点,那么最有可能的论点是卫生保健工作者在工作时所承担的风险。我们认为,这一论点的范围并不仅仅适用于卫生保健工作者。其他面临风险的重要工作人员也有同样的理由。我们还认为,从互惠性来看,没有令人信服的论点表明,有必要与疫苗而不是通过其他方式进行互惠。此外,基于互惠原则分配疫苗将与效用最大化相冲突。鉴于这些论点的薄弱状态,对效用的压倒一切的关注似乎是不合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reciprocity as an Argument for Prioritizing Health Care Workers for the COVID-19 Vaccine
During the recent debates on whether to prioritize health care workers for COVID-19 vaccines, two main lines of arguments emerged: one centered on maximizing health and one centered on reciprocity. In this article, we scrutinize the argument from reciprocity. The notions of fittingness and proportionality are fundamental for the act of reciprocating. We consider the importance of these notions for various arguments from reciprocity, showing that the arguments are problematic. If there is a plausible argument for reciprocity during the pandemic, this is most likely one that centers on the risk that health care workers take on while working. We argue that the scope of this argument is not plausibly extended only to health care workers. Other essential workers at risk are in the position to make the same arguments. We also argue that there is no compelling argument from reciprocity that makes reciprocating with vaccines, rather than by other means, necessary. Furthermore, allocating vaccines based on reciprocity will conflict with utility-maximizing. Given the weak state of the arguments, overriding concerns for utility seem unreasonable. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信