Read this article and watch this youtube video, and then respond to the following prompt:
Considering the widespread reach and severity of the H1N1 pandemic, vaccinations have been rushed through the manufacturing process to the public by the government. The first round of people are about to receive vaccines right now, and it should be available to the general public by the end of this month. Considering that the potential side effects are unknown in scope and severity, is it best for the government to act deontologically and release an untested vaccination? Or is it in the best for the government to act from the standpoint of utilitarianism and not side-step all health and safety precautions pertaining to this vaccine?
(Submitted by Nikhil Shah)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, as a side note, the article link does not work.
ReplyDeleteThe youtube video featured here shows a woman who came down with horrendous side effects due to the seasonal flu vaccine. What's important to note is that she took a regular flu vaccine and not the H1N1 flu vaccine. Although it is highly unfortunate that some people come down with such disorders due to flu shots, it is extremely rare and people should not be discouraged to take flu shots because of this. The average person has a much, much higher risk of dying from the flu (which is not extremely high either) as compared to developing some kind of devastating side effects due to the vaccine.
Now, onto the H1NI vaccine itself. It is dangerous, and in my opinion, unethical for people to spread misinformation about the H1N1 vaccine to the public. The idea that the H1N1 vaccine was somehow rushed and did not go through the regular procedures that are neccesary before a vaccine can be released to the public are simply false. The exact same procedures and guidelines were followed in releasing the H1N1 vaccine as are used before releasing regular seasonal flu vaccines.
The potential side effects ARE documented just as much they are documented for any other vaccine that doctors recommend.
Thus, the government can act deontoligcally by releasing the vaccine AND in a utilitarian way by releasing the vaccine and thereby saving the most lives possible. No health and safety precautions were sidestepped in making the vaccine and any claims to the contrary ar wholly without merit.
For more infomation regarding the facts behind this vaccine, see this link: http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features/is-the-h1n1-swine-flu-vaccine-safe
~Ankit Agarwal
The article posted did not work but after watching this youtube video I have a different opinion than I would have had had i not watched that video. Before watching the video my initial response would be there is no doubt that the government should act in a deontological way and release the flu shot hoping that the outcomes would back up the intentions of avoiding death around the world. The epidemic of H1N1 is debatable, becuase it is assumed that people only pass away from this because of pre-exhisting conditions, therefore, the flu shot should be directed towards people ONLY with pre-exhisting conditions. Did this cheerleader know about the nerve disease which she had that got triggered from the shot? Maybe instead of putting it on the government it should be on the individual opting for or against the shot. The government is acting in its best intention by releasing a shot to prevent the illness, stating that they are aware that they do not know all side effects. The governemnt can not promise that every vaccine is perfect, nor do they ever say that with any vaccine as we see with vaccines in general indicating autism. After watching the video; however, I wonder if acting in a utilitarianistic way would beneft more people in the world, I guess that is something we will have to wait and see by seeing the number of deaths from H1N1 vs. the number of negative side effects from the flu shot. To conclude, i think it is really in the hands of the individual receiving the shot to take all tests that they need to take or is offered to see any pre exhisting conditions that would benefit or harm them either by receiving the shot or by receiving the flu.
ReplyDeleteThis ethical dilemma can be best decided by looking through the media-induced public panic about the H1N1 "pandemic". The H1N1 flu does not present a significant health risk to the majority of the global population, it is simply not virulent enough to warrant the attention it is getting. Its biggest threat is the possibility that it could mutate into a more virulent form, which could create public health problems. The best way to prevent a possible mutation is to reduce the spread of H1N1, and therefore reduce its prevalence. The H1N1 vaccine is the most effective way to reduce incident cases of H1N1 infection. The government will not release a vaccine that is acutely harmful to a significant portion of its target population. As with all medical treatments, it will create side effects that will be harmful to some people. However, it is in the interest of the government to do what is best for the majority of its people. Essentially, a government is almost always obligated to act from a utilitarian point of view. In this case, it is best for our society to accept and utilize the vaccine. Although the current form of H1N1 is not of particular concern, the risk of a few people suffering from side effects is offset by the utility that the rest of society gets by a decreased risk of a mutated H1N1 virus. The individual citizen can decide whether or not he would like to risk H1N1 infection or flu shot complications.
ReplyDelete~Matthew H
I agree that the H1N1 vaccination was developed too quickly with minor research and now it may be too dangerous to enact a governmental push for a deontological option and allow for everyone to get vaccinated. In the case of the girl from the video developing an extremely rare condition after obtaining the seasonal flu shot, which is a very responsive and preventive vaccine, I believe the best response from the government would be to not bypass all the safety precautions and be willing to ensure the beneficence of the population. On the contrary, the principle of autonomy would hold that if the H1N1 vaccine or any vaccine is available and a person is eligible, then he or she should be able to receive it regardless of the risk, given they are aware of the potential risks and preliminary outcomes. I don't believe the government can ethically send out a vaccine that isn't completely certain of the side effects and severity of the potential duration of these side effects. The government should act with utility and seek the most good for the most amount of people, and despite the risks for people obtaining rare disorders, the autonomy of an individual would either accept or reject a personal warrant for the vaccine. I believe it is a difficult option for the government to release the vaccine without further understanding, but despite the rare potential, it may be in the best interest of utility to send them out anyway.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link. This one works
ReplyDeletehttp://preventdisease.com/news/09/080709_swine_flu_hype.shtml
Overall, every vaccine for any disease can have consequences on the public. What scientists do to counteract these problems is do extensive testing and take safety precautions before releasing such a vaccine. However, it is extremely important to remember that these cases are one in a million, and for any vaccine these cases will arise no matter what. In the end, I actually believe it is desirable from both a deontological and a utilitarian viewpoint to release vaccines and give individuals the choice of whether to take them or not.
ReplyDeleteFrom a deontological standpoint, it is important to distribute the vaccine because it is in the duty of the people to stop maleficence in the world and create beneficence. These objectives can be achieved by saving lives through the distribution of the vaccine [although it might have side effects].
Furthermore, from a utilitarian point of view, the distribution of the vaccines is favorable as well. While Bentham and Mill emphasize the amount of good done to each person, they also strongly highlight the scope of the good. In relation to this way of thinking, the incredible amount of disease preventions that the vaccine would cause highly outweighs these one-in-a-million side effects. More good is created in the world overall despite the hurt to some.
Overall, the vaccine is a good idea from both a deontological standpoint as well as a utilitarian view. Both sides would say that releasing the vaccine despite possible side effects would be morally acceptable if not obligatory. Because of this, I believe the government has the right to release these vaccines despite possible side effects which are unavoidable.
~ Tully Cheng
I think that if the government has the technology to provide a vaccine to the general public to prevent against an illness, that it has a duty to do so in order to comply with a government's obligation to it's people to act with beneficence. If the government has done the research to produce the technology to develop a vaccine that is safe and will not likely pose serious health risks to the majority of people who get it, they have a duty to release it. In my opinion, the only reason that the government would not be ethically obligated to release the vaccine, is if they feel that there are more than substantial risks associated with the vaccine that would likely affect the majority of the people who get vaccinated. Under these conditions, it would not be acting beneficently to offer a vaccination that would likely harm the majority of people who receive it, so the government would not be ethically obligated by the principle of beneficence to release it to the public.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, it is obvious that some patients will experience side effects as a result of the vaccine, and not all patients will respond positively to the vaccine, but patients also have the option to exercise their right to autonomy in deciding whether or not they are willing to take that risk of getting the vaccine. As patients, we have the ability to research the vaccine and the testing that has been done, consult with our physicians and family members and be fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of the vaccine. Not all people will neccesarily take advantage of these opportunities, but nonetheless, individuals have the opportunity to learn what they need to know to make a decision about getting the vaccine or not. Therefore, because individuals have the ability to become informed about the risks and benefits and to act autonomously in choosing to be vaccinated or not, the government has a duty to provide that vaccine to those who still desire it under those conditions.
The woman in the video suffered an unfortunate, but very rare side effect of the seasonal flu vaccine. This video has become fairly widespread and people have the misconception that the woman received the H1N1 vaccine, which is false. Regardless of the type of vaccine, side effects can occur. The government is not hiding any of thse potential complications from the public. That being said, I do think it is unethical for the government to rush through production of any vaccine, whether is be H1N1 or any other. Even though side effects such as those seen in the video are rare, there is a chance something like that can occur. Because the H1N1 vaccine is new, we do not really know how severe the side effects may be. Is it better to rush the vaccine at the risk of making people ill? I think it is also important to consider how rushed these vaccines have been. Exactly what steps in production have been missed so that the vaccine can be available sooner? In terms of deontology, the government does have the duty to keep people from illesses by any available means. However, I do not think the government has the duty to provide a potentially unsafe vaccine, which may be the case if it is rushed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ankit in that the H1N1 vaccine has been developed using the same guidelines and procedures as have been used when producing other vaccines. However, what of the long-term effects? Vaccines for other viruses have been perfected and the effects have been monitored and corrected. Even for the regular Flu vaccine, which is in response to a different strain of the Flu virus every year, has to be better researched since it is among the most common vaccines administered every year.
ReplyDeleteThe video is extremely sad and definitely makes me think twice about getting a Flu vaccine. But I also wonder if she always had the capacity to have that disease? That is, if the Flu vaccine didn't trigger it, maybe something else would have.
The H1N1 vaccine is still very new, and therefore I think that it should be treated with caution. The deontological thing to do would be to release the "untested" vaccine and hope that it was helpful, disregarding the consequences of such an action. I don't think that applies here, though, because the vaccine is not untested. The government and researchers know enough about the Swine Flu and the H1N1 vaccine to feel that it is safe to release to the public. The utilitarianism principles do not really apply here, either, because while they have followed procedure and have done research regarding this vaccine, they still do not know the repercussions or long-term consequences. So while they are not "side-stepping" all safety precautions, they cannot safely administer the drug without knowing the long-term effects.
The H1N1 virus vaccinations are not considered highly reliable to have a positive effect or, any effect at all for that matter. Officials do not know how the virus will mutate and have no assurance in whether or not the vaccination will prevent the public from catching the virus.
ReplyDeleteOn account of the youtube video, we should note that the woman did not get the H1N1 virus vaccination, but the regular flu shot. We should also acknowledge that the woman's symptomes have no cure. When the cure is unknown, most of the time the cause is not defined. Therefore, there is no definite proof that her symptomes are from the flu vaccination.
Even when the flu vaccination has been around for a while and is consdered to be fairly affective in preventing the common flu, there are still unknown results that come from the shot. How can we be sure this will not be the same for the H1N1 virus vaccination shot? Especially when the officials do not even know how affective the shot would be.
Although the situation should be handled by putting in the effort into finding a way to prevent the spread, which follows up with the deontological method, the outcome very much matters since the outcome would regard to a person's life or death.
Could we say that the new vaccine for the H1N1 virus is experimental? Is there absolutely no harm to be done? No side-effects? It seems as though the new vaccine is simply to give a sense of assurance to the public rather than a real solution.
It would not make a difference to spend more time on finding a vaccine that has a higher possibility of preventing the the spread of H1N1.
As was noted in previous posts, the lady in the video suffered a terrible side effect of the regular seasonal flu vaccine. The H1N1 vaccine has been negatively portrayed to the public, indicating that the vaccine has not gone through the proper testing and may be dangerous. However, any vaccine that is cleared for distribution to the public must have been through steps of rigorous testing in order to be deemed efficacious. Now the decision here lies on the individual to decide whether or not he/she would like to subject themselves to the side effects of this vaccine.
ReplyDeleteThere are certain individuals that are at higher risk than others and may have some respiratory issues, wherein side effects of the vaccination may weigh heavier than other less susceptible individuals. In this situation it may be wise to avoid the newly created vaccine that may have negative side effects. On the other hand, if an individual has enough faith in the scientific community, to distribute a safe and efficient vaccine, then he/she may like to receive the vaccination.
Despite either one of these individuals’ decisions to his/her specific situations and competent acts of autonomy, the vaccine should be released. As it is not only fulfilling the communities deontological nature by distributing a vaccination that may improve the health and morbidity status of the public, but it is also providing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people by allowing individuals access to the vaccination that would benefit from it the most. This provides the community with the treatment but allows the individual to act autonomously. Regardless, the treatment should be offered since it has been through the same scientific research rigor that all other vaccinations have been.
Considering the widespread reach and severity of the H1N1 pandemic, vaccinations have been rushed through the manufacturing process to the public by the government. The first round of people are about to receive vaccines right now, and it should be available to the general public by the end of this month. Considering that the potential side effects are unknown in scope and severity, I do not believe it best for the government to act deontologically and release an untested vaccination, but instead, for the government to act from the standpoint of utilitarianism and not side-step all health and safety precautions pertaining to this vaccine.
ReplyDeleteAs previously mentioned the link for the article did not work, but I was able to watch the YouTube video. The story is heartbreaking and scary to say the least. Although she had an underlying medical condition that may have or may not have been caused by the flu shot, it raises some serious questions. One of the most important questions is whether or not the H1N1 Flu Vaccine is any more dangerous than others.
I believe the government does take substantial steps to assure the vaccines are as safe as possible before releasing it to the public. However based on this example given in the question, I could not agree with the government if they were to act deontologically and released an untested vaccination. An untested vaccination could have numerous side effects and health hazards. These effects could be immediate or become evident in the future. The immediate side effects could be triggering of particular diseases or conditions which is believed to have evoked the condition in the YouTube video. The long term effects could be drug resistant or new variations of the illness because of the vaccine. If the government was to release and untested vaccine the outcome could be catastrophic for the United States and the entire world.
I do believe it is best for the government to act from the standpoint of utilitarianism and not side-step all health and safety precautions pertaining to this vaccine, which I believe they do to the greatest degree possible. Like previously stated, the government has extremely tough regulations on each drug, from the contents, to the effect, and even the process of making the product. Unfortunately we do not know the long term effects of most drugs which creates the unknown, however that is why the United States provides a safe product but allows for each individual to decide whether they would like to receive the vaccine or not.
-KEENAN