Ethical allocation of scarce vaccine doses: The Priority-Equality protocol
Ver/ Abrir
Impacto
Scholar |
Otros documentos de la autoría: Alós Ferrer, Carlos; García-Segarra, Jaume; Ginés-Vilar, Miguel
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemcomunitat-uji-handle:10234/9
comunitat-uji-handle2:10234/8643
comunitat-uji-handle3:10234/8644
comunitat-uji-handle4:
INVESTIGACIONMetadatos
Título
Ethical allocation of scarce vaccine doses: The Priority-Equality protocolFecha de publicación
2022Editor
Frontiers MediaISSN
2296-2565Cita bibliográfica
Alós-Ferrer C, García-Segarra J and Ginés-Vilar M (2022) Ethical allocation of scarce vaccine doses: The Priority-Equality protocol. Front. Public Health 10:986776. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.986776Tipo de documento
info:eu-repo/semantics/articleVersión de la editorial
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.986776/fullVersión
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPalabras clave / Materias
Resumen
Background: Whenever vaccines for a new pandemic or widespread epidemic
are developed, demand greatly exceeds the available supply of vaccine doses
in the crucial, initial phases of vaccination. Rationing protocols ... [+]
Background: Whenever vaccines for a new pandemic or widespread epidemic
are developed, demand greatly exceeds the available supply of vaccine doses
in the crucial, initial phases of vaccination. Rationing protocols must then
fulfill a number of ethical principles balancing equal treatment of individuals
and prioritization of at-risk and instrumental subpopulations. For COVID19, actual rationing methods used a territory-based first allocation stage
based on proportionality to population size, followed by locally-implemented
prioritization rules. The results of this procedure have been argued to be
ethically problematic.
Methods: We use a formal-analytical approach arising from the mathematical
social sciences which allows to investigate whether any allocation methods
(known or unknown) fulfill a combination of (ethical) desiderata and, if so, how
they are formulated algorithmically.
Results: Strikingly, we find that there exists one and only one method that
allows to treat people equally while giving priority to those who are worse o.
We identify this method down to the algorithmic level and show that it is easily
implementable and it exhibits additional, desirable properties. In contrast, we
show that the procedures used during the COVID-19 pandemic violate both
principles.
Conclusions: Our research delivers an actual algorithm that is readily
applicable and improves upon previous ones. Since our axiomatic approach
shows that any other algorithm would either fail to treat people equally or fail to
prioritize those who are worse o, we conclude that ethical principles dictate
the adoption of this algorithm as a standard for the COVID-19 or any other
comparable vaccination campaigns. [-]
Publicado en
Frontiers in Public Health 2022. Dec 13;10:986776Entidad financiadora
Universitat Jaume I | Generalitat Valenciana
Código del proyecto o subvención
UJI-B2020-16 | AICO/2021/005
Derechos de acceso
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Aparece en las colecciones
- ECO_Articles [697]