COVID-19 vaccine refusal as unfair free-riding.

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-08 DOI:10.1007/s11019-023-10188-2
Joshua Kelsall
{"title":"COVID-19 vaccine refusal as unfair free-riding.","authors":"Joshua Kelsall","doi":"10.1007/s11019-023-10188-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Contributions to COVID-19 vaccination programmes promise valuable collective goods. They can support public and individual health by creating herd immunity and taking the pressure off overwhelmed public health services; support freedom of movement by enabling governments to remove restrictive lockdown policies; and improve economic and social well-being by allowing businesses, schools, and other essential public services to re-open. The vaccinated can contribute to the production of these goods. The unvaccinated, who benefit from, but who do not contribute to these goods can be morally criticised as free-riders. In this paper defends the claim that in the case of COVID-19, the unvaccinated are unfair free-riders. I defend the claim against two objections. First, that they are not unfair free-riders because they lack the subjective attitudes and intentions of free-riders; second, that although the unvaccinated may be free-riders, their free-riding is not unfair.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10904454/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10188-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Contributions to COVID-19 vaccination programmes promise valuable collective goods. They can support public and individual health by creating herd immunity and taking the pressure off overwhelmed public health services; support freedom of movement by enabling governments to remove restrictive lockdown policies; and improve economic and social well-being by allowing businesses, schools, and other essential public services to re-open. The vaccinated can contribute to the production of these goods. The unvaccinated, who benefit from, but who do not contribute to these goods can be morally criticised as free-riders. In this paper defends the claim that in the case of COVID-19, the unvaccinated are unfair free-riders. I defend the claim against two objections. First, that they are not unfair free-riders because they lack the subjective attitudes and intentions of free-riders; second, that although the unvaccinated may be free-riders, their free-riding is not unfair.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 疫苗拒绝接种是不公平的搭便车行为。
对 COVID-19 疫苗接种计划的捐助是宝贵的集体财富。疫苗接种计划可以产生群体免疫力,减轻不堪重负的公共卫生服务压力,从而为公众和个人健康提供支持;使政府能够取消限制性封锁政策,从而为行动自由提供支持;使企业、学校和其他基本公共服务机构能够重新开放,从而改善经济和社会福祉。接种疫苗的人可以为这些产品的生产做出贡献。没有接种疫苗的人虽然从这些产品中获益,但却没有为这些产品做出贡献,因此在道德上会被批评为搭便车者。在本文中,我将为 "在 COVID-19 的情况下,未接种者是不公平的搭便车者 "这一主张进行辩护。我针对两种反对意见进行了辩护。第一,他们不是不公平的搭便车者,因为他们缺乏搭便车者的主观态度和意图;第二,尽管未接种疫苗者可能是搭便车者,但他们的搭便车行为并不不公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
期刊最新文献
Tracking ambivalence: an existential critique of datafication in the context of chronic pain. Biobank consent under the GDPR: are potential sample donors informed about all lawful uses of biobank data? Healthcare providers' advocacy approaches and ethical challenges in delivering healthcare to undocumented migrants: a scoping review. Embracing ambivalence and hesitation: a Ricoeurian perspective on anticipatory choice processes at the end of life. To cure or not to cure.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1