State To Give Prisoners H1N1 Shots First
Sheriff Says Jails Perfect 'Breeding Grounds'
BOSTON -- Massachusetts health officials have decided to give swine flu vaccinations to state prisoners before the rest of the population.
Prison officials warn that inmates could quickly spread the flu if not inoculated -- particularly those in high-risk groups such as AIDS patients.
Middlesex Sheriff James DiPaola told the Boston Herald that prisons were the perfect flu "breeding ground." DiPaola dealt with riots in a Cambridge jail when rumors of swine flu spread there.
But state Sen. Mark Montigny said several groups are more vulnerable than prisoners. The New Bedford Democrat said the inoculations should be given to the public immediately.
The vaccines, which are voluntary, will be sent to correctional facilities the second week of November. They are set to be available to the general public by Nov. 27.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although it might seem ridiculous to give the vaccine to inmates before the general population, I believe that this way of thinking makes sense. It would be better for individuals who are at higher risk to receive the vaccine before those who have a lower risk. This being said, I believe that there are also many similar groups that should receive the the vaccine as well. These groups would include students in schools and universities [a common breeding ground for disease], people who work in cramped work places where spread of disease is probable, and densely populated cities. This way, the most number of people will be innoculated and resistant to swine flu.
ReplyDeleteHowever, from a utilitarian standpoint, we must also take into account how much each individual might contribute to society. For example, a CEO of a company or a practicing doctor might contribute more to society as a whole than a prisoner. Thus, vaccinating these individuals over prisoners might also seem like a good idea. One might be inclined to favor one individual over another simply based on utility that individual might add to society.
Overall, there should be a balance between giving the vaccine to high-risk individuals and individuals that might contribute more to society. While the vaccine should be given to prisoners, students, and city populations prematurely, it should also be given to individuals that act as the foundation and structure of the world. The median of this balance might not be clearly defined, but we can be certain that neither side of the spectrum can be ignored.
~Tully Cheng
Wow, I want to start by stating I have a very close friend who is currently incarcerated in a Massachusetts state prison, so by no means do I judge anyone who may have made a mistake (or many mistakes) and earned themselves a few years in state prison. However, this news does bother me for a number of reasons. I absolutely agree with the underlying concept that prisons are a breeding ground for disease with close quarters, over populated holding cells, and not the most sanitary of conditions but such environments are not necessarily much different then those found within the low income areas and highly populated universities spread throughout Massachusetts where thousandths of law abiding, hardworking citizens of the state reside. It almost frustrates me that Mr. Dipoala mentions the Cambridge riots within the article almost as reasoning for inoculating prisoners before the general public. Those riots caused unrepairable water damage to one of our largest facilities, resulted in the transfer of hundreds of prisoners into already overpopulated county jails, and added an outstanding expense to the state, all as a result of these prisoners uncivilized, and barbaric response to a growing public health concern not simply confined within the walls of the facility but to the entire public as a whole. So with this said, as a result of this violent and damaging protest the state is now going to reward these inmates as a response to such actions and offer them protection before people living in other high-risk situations due to fear of such a situation arising again. Does this seem logical? So, if all the people living within the low-income projects of Worcester and Boston were to riot and dismantle the cities they live in due to a fear that they would not receive the vaccine before the flu season strikes do you think that they would be admitted into area hospital and given the vaccine free of charge or do you think they would be graciously escorted to the county jail (where they ironically enough would have their request met)? There are thousandths of individuals who reside in these highly populated unsanitary areas that work day in and day out in order to provide for their families in a legal fashion and can not afford health insurance, or cannot find the time to take off from work (loosing pay) to go over to the closest clinic and get their flu shots so wouldn't it be more beneficial for the state to create a mobile service and spend our state taxes to protect those who are at just as high of a risk but actually contributing positively to the community?
ReplyDeleteCONT. FROM ABOVE
ReplyDeleteHypothetically speaking,lets say there were to be an outbreak of the swine flu virus within the prison.I honestly believe it would be less detrimental to society as a whole in that these individuals do not have to wake up every morning, possibly infect hundreds of people while using public transportation as a means of getting to work, and spend hours in an office building regardless of how sick they maybe in order to receive the paycheck which sustains their families foundation. If an inmate or entire population of inmates were to become infected it seems to me that such a group is already quarantined from the majority of the population and therefore by stopping all guest visits and inoculating all prison guards it would be much more likely to decrease further spread of the infection and care for such people then for example trying to quarantine an entire building in the great-brook-valley projects of Worcester which are full of people who would not have the luxury of missing work to seek medical attention while simultaneously paying their rent without previous planning.
I think it would be understandable for the state to take responsibility for those individuals who are in their care and well-reasoned to offer the vaccine to any inmates who have a pre-existing illness such as HIV which makes them more susceptible and more likely to undergo complications should they come in contact with the swine flu. Furthermore, I am not stating that I feel prisoners should not in the end be offered the flu vaccine, I just think out of respect for those at risk , law abiding, citizens of the state and in conjunction with the above information, at the absolute very least the state of Massachusetts should be giving the vaccine to the general public prior to those individuals who are incarcerated. Swine flu is not simply a public health concern involving inmate populations, it is a Global concern creating fear among people everywhere.
Prevention is the key to the swine flu. To stop it before it becomes an epidemic seems to be the most logical way of approaching this disease. Therefore it is logical to first target high risk groups who are likely to spread the disease rapidly. Prisoners, being one of these high risk groups, should have some priority in receiving the vaccine. However I do not think that they should have priority over other high risk groups in the community.
ReplyDeleteSome people may think that as prisoners, they have less of a right to the vaccine then law abiding citizens. I think this reasoning is flawed. Prisoners are human beings just like anyone else and therefore have an inherent right to health care. Also if we are quick to say that prisoners should have less rights than non-prisoners, then what about amongst the prison population itself? Do some crimes such as murder take away more rights than crimes such as theft? What about prisoners who have been released after a sentencing, should we always treat them with less dignity because maybe one time they made a mistake? Or what if a prisoner is released because he/she is found to be innocent after DNA testing, would it have been right for us to withhold the vaccine from this person? I just feel that it is a slippery slope to put prisoners on a different level as the rest of the community.
Utilitarianism would say the greatest good for the greatest number. I understand the arguments posted that giving the vaccine to groups in the community may positively affect a lot of “innocent” people, but I think we are forgetting about the extremely large web of “innocent” people that would be positively affected if the prison population received the vaccine. There are hundreds of workers who have not committed crimes that are working day in and day out in jails. From guards to maintenance workers to cooks to lawyers to social workers and volunteers, all of these people who are law abiding citizens are directly affected by the prison population. All of these people have large webs of others with whom they could infect if they contracted swine flu from a prisoner. For this reason I think the argument that Utilitarianism would not support giving the vaccine to the prisoners is flawed.
That being said, I agree with the deontological view of humans having inherent rights because they are human. Also that the workers in the prisons have a duty to remain working to support their lives and the lives of their families and therefore should not be put in harms way each day by going to work with prisoners who are a breeding ground for a swine flu epidemic. I think it is the duty of the government to protect its citizens and distribute the vaccine to all high risk groups, not just prisoners, but schools, hospitals, nursing homes etc. I do not think we can put one group over another, all high risk groups should be targeted.
~Jenna Freitas
I agree with Jenna in saying that the framework of utilitarianism requires the vaccines to be distributed in high risk areas such as prisons first. Not only are the prisoners at high risk for the disease, but other workers in the prison may be at high risk as well.
ReplyDeleteIt may seem unreasonable to give the "evil-doers" vaccines before other susceptible members of society living on the outside, but our society is already heavily invested in prisons and the lives of prisoners and not innoculating a high risk area such as a prison will only increase the eventual costs to society and the taxpayer. Most states already spend between $40,000-$60,000 per year per prisoner in a state prison so denying these flu shots as unncesary expenses is a frivolous arguement.
Sadly, many people who are at high risk of the flu, such as people living in close quarters in slums or the like, do not get the flu vaccine due to the associated costs. This discrepancy is even greater when one compares the number of flu vaccines available in a country like a United States as compared to the number of flu vaccines available in a third world country. From the utilitarian viewpoint, people who are at highest risk and who give most to society should get the vaccines first, but in practice this idea is not always possible.
While a prison is definitely in a high risk situation for the spread of swine flu(Cramped living quarters, a generally unsanitary enclosed space that would make the spread of swine flu inevitable), I do not think that this should allow prisoners to receive the vaccine before the rest of the population. There are many other high-risk groups that encompass law abiding citizens such as those in University setting who live in dormitories that make the spread of disease very easy. Student at these universities go out into the world every day and interact with many more people than say a prisoner contained within the walls of a jail. It is much more likely that a student or person of the general population who is traveling, riding public transportation, and interacting with a much greater number of people will become infected with swine flu than say, a prisoner who can only be infected by others who come into the prison itself. As mentioned in the article, a prisoner with AIDS is at a high risk for swine flu but there are even more people in the general population with AIDS that are at even greater risk because they are interacting with such a large amount of people every single day in work, transportation, and in living quarters.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with the fact that prisoners should be able to receive the vaccine because they are human beings that we have a duty to provide health care to like anybody else, it is ridiculous that they would receive the vaccine before the other high-risk groups amongst the general population. They should be receiving it at the same time as the other high-risk groups. Even with this change many people will still not agree with the idea. This is simply due to the fact that a swine flu outbreak within the confines of prison walls will not effect as many people as say and outbreak in a university that will then spread to the surrounding city/town or an outbreak in a hospital and amongst doctors who are in contact with extremely high risk patients. While you could argue that visitors/prison workers coming in the prison would then bring the swine flu out into the general population, it would still involve less people than the university or hospital setting which has no confines at all to the outside world.
As another has mentioned, looking at this from the utilitarian view it is important that we do the greatest good for the greatest number of people by stopping those at the highest risk from getting the swine flu but also those that work or live in settings that would place them at the highest risk for infecting others so that they will be less likely to become infected and pass it on.
What about the uninsured who cannot afford to get the vaccine but have underlying medical conditions that will make them very susceptible to swine flu? Shouldn't we provide them with the swine flu vaccine if we are providing it to prisoners? There are so many factors that go into such a decision because only so many people can receive the vaccine. By providing all high risk groups with equal opportunity to get the vaccine is the only way to ensure that it is fair.
-Kristen Brady
This development might warrant public outcry if there were going to be a shortage of vaccine available for distribution. But all evidence is to the contrary; Congress has allocated $2.7 billion in funds to blunt the pandemic, including both inactivated intravenous and activated nasal vaccinations, antiviral treatments, distribution methods, and cost-reductions.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the United States has purchased over 250 million vaccine doses. This is more than enough to supply doses to all those who come forward looking for a vaccine (the number of those who do not seek treatment is unfortunately very high, another problem Congress and the CDC are looking to solve in time for vaccine distribution). There are financial differences between the H1N1 and the seasonal flu vaccine. Specifically,t he government has purchased the supplies and doses so providers do not need to seek compensation, and the CDC is providing funding to states to coordinate vaccination efforts. The 250 million doses will easily cover the groups at highest risk, such as emergency medical and hospital personnel, and, in the example above, prison inmates. The minority of the population who do not receive the treatment can be treated with antivirals and use behavioral measures to limit contraction of the virus such as proper hygiene.
-CONTINUED-
ReplyDeleteThe ethical concern here is the most debatable, specifically the question of whether or not prisoners even deserve vaccination. It seems fallacious to me to group every inmate in the same category, label them as a homogeneous group called Prisoners, and judge them accordingly. We do not know why any given inmate is in prison. A serial killer and an embezzler don't wear giant name tags on their prison garb. But it doesn't matter why they're in there.
The deontological theory seems the best suited to me regarding this problem. From a medical perspective, the duty is to provide vaccinations to those who are at highest risk, and continue forwards to those at lesser risk. It is not the responsibility of the CDC or individual medical personnel to judge inmates. The court system already does so.
The preventative measures needed to help eliminate the fast spread of the swine flu is to the inoculate the groups of people who are at high risk of infection. It is brought to the public attention that state prisoners are one of these groups who carry the risk of spreading the flu quickly. They will receive the vaccination roughly two weeks before the general public.
ReplyDeleteIt seems a little backwards that the people who have committed a crime will be receiving the vaccination prior to “innocent” people. However, the reasoning behind this decision seems solid. There are workers and visitors who enter the jails daily, increasing the risk of spread to the “innocent” people not associated to the jail. In essence, this also reflects the idea that although the jails have been listed as a “breeding ground” for the flu, so is a college dorm. Warren Towers for example (nothing against it) holds approximately (could be wrong), 1,500 beds, with people constantly coming in and out, eating in the same place, using community bathrooms, is a perfect breeding ground for quick spread of the flu. I do believe students in a dorm setting should be a higher priority over the prisoners excluding the guards and officials who should receive the vaccine prior also.
Utilitarianism believe the greatest good for the greatest number. I believe this supports the idea that prisoners be inoculated first. It can’t be said which group holds a higher rank to receive the vaccination. Regardless, this is a very complex issue that holds arguments from all different ethic sides. However, from a deontological standpoint, one should do onto others as they would do onto us” would be a logical argument for those solely against the prisoners having the right to vaccinations first. Prisoners are in contact with plenty of groups associated outside the jail and we would want that prisoner to be vaccinated, as we want to for ourselves, in order to protect oneself.
I have to agree with Sara that there are many high risk groups who are not in the prisons and should have the same right to a speedy vaccination as the prisoners are being given. While I understand the perspective of the officials, their concern for the spread in prisons does not outweigh the fact that this same concern is felt for other groups as well. Yes there are prisoners are apart of high-risk groups, such as those with AIDS, but why should they be treated better than those persons with AIDS who are law-abiding members of society? If the decision is going to be made to provide the jails with vaccinations first because of the high risk, then other high risk groups should be provided with the vaccination at the same time. Often times the rooms in Warren Towers or West Campus have been compared to jail cells, and that assessment is not so far off. Students, especially college freshman, are extremely susceptible to sickness when they are living in small rooms with several other students. I would think that the officials would also want to send an early round of the vaccine to colleges so that students could also be protected from getting, as well as spreading, the flu.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that preventative care should hold precedence in this matter. This would hold consistent with Norman Daniels politically conservative argument of avoiding “big ticket costs”. In this particular situation, the preventative notion would be focused on efficiently vaccinating the population given a certain surplus. The issue is whether or not the inmates are at a significantly elevated risk of incubating this disease. Also, if these risk factors are significant, it must be determined whether or not other areas out of the prison are at high risk of incubation and spread as well.
ReplyDeleteThese comparative judgments will weigh heavily on the distribution and arrival time of this vaccination to the general public. I would have to argue against vaccinating all of the inmates before any of the general public. Primarily because I feel that areas such as school campuses, airports, daycare's, hospitals and hotels have a much larger quantity of individuals that are constantly associating with each other and possibly transmitting the disease. Students for example are constantly roaming campus and touching objects that have just been used by maybe hundreds of students that day. These individuals are also in close quarters like these prisoners.
I have no bias against the inmates of said prison, but I believe that there should be distributive justice amongst the population. I am not weighing these inmates innate and constitution rights of receiving this vaccination, I am simply following the principle of utility because I find this the most effective and efficient. The greatest good for the greatest number of people would have to go in favor of vaccinating the higher prevalent areas.
Although there may be an argument about the close quarters and susceptibility of these inmates to the disease, I feel that there are similar cases where individuals are bound to a certain location, such as a dormitory. There is nowhere else for students to retreat to if they are unaware of their roommate’s disease ridden state. Also, if there were arrangements made to exit said location on the spot I feel that the same arrangements should be made in the prison. Therefore I disagree with the almost two week post release of this vaccination to the public.
As much as it would make sense to vaccinate the prisoners first, who is to say that they would be the most vulnerable or even the most deserving group to receive the first vaccinations? Yes, utilitarianism argues that people must do whatever benefits the greatest good for the greatest number but we are unable to tell whether that choice in this situation would be offering the vaccine to prisoners. For example, young children in schools or perhaps elderly people in a nursing home could be just as susceptible in the close conditions they live and interact in. Although the security guards at the prisons would also become vulnerable to swine flu if there happened to be an outbreak in the prison, one can still look at it the same way as teachers becoming more susceptible in schools if there is an outbreak among the children in class.
ReplyDeleteI can imagine that a common argument against giving the vaccine to prisoners first would be that they do not deserve it as much as law-abiding citizens do. It is hard to say whether it would be fair if an elderly veteran or active volunteer in a community were to die from swine flu while a man serving time in prison for murder receives the vaccine and avoids the illness. I would personally say that the prisoners should not necessarily have first priority to the vaccines. If we are to keep it completely fair, it should be done on a first come first serve basis and we should make our best attempt to vaccinate as many people as possible. If a prisoner happens to contract the illness, perhaps a more isolated area should be designated for such instances.
Essentially, whichever path leads to the greatest good for the community should be the path that is chosen when attempting to contain the virus.
There is an ethical argument to be made for treating prisoners first, if this article and the threat prisons pose is to be believed. The purpose of developing a vaccine for something like swine flu is to prevent the spread of, and hopefully eradicate the virus. For that reason, for the vaccine to succeed, it seems logical to identify the most likely to spread the virus and ensure they are targetted first in order to most quickly gain ground against the spreading virus and thus better pretect everyone. At its heart, medical advancements, including the deveopment of vaccines, should be in the interest of health care, rather than as a means of rewarding or judging the good and bad members of society.
ReplyDeleteFirst, though, it is worth noting the source of this information regarding the likelihood of swine flu spreading in prison. The article's implication that prisons are hot beds for the virus is based on statements from prison and police officials. It would seem to be in these officials' interests to vaccinate the prisons first, not solely to protect high-risk prisoners, but also to protect themselves, the ones working with prisoners regularly. Thus, it might be a mistake to take the claim that prisons are in any way more succeptible to the virus at face value given the stakes of those making these claims.
However, for the sake of argument, if the prisoners are in fact more likely to contract and spread the virus, there is an ethical basis for defending their prioritized treatment. Prison are a means of enacting justice, but justice can also be interpreted as the fair distribution of resources, in this case a vaccine. The question then becomes what consitutes fair distribution? It seems a common duty in societies to treat equals as equals; so, are prisoners and free citizens equals in deserving vaccination? Criminality alone seems an unfair means of dividing groups of society when it comes to health care. From a deontological perspective, it is a primary duty to do first what is beneficent and that would include protecting everyone from unhealth if possible. This duty appears to be prima facie and stronger than another duty to punish the unlawful. Thus, when it comes to health care, prisoners and free citizens, must be treated as equals. And in the interest of justice the vaccine must be distributed fairly between everyone.
From the perspective of utility, the most ethical distribution of the vaccine would be in a way that protects the maximum number of people and as fast as possible. If this means vaccinating those most likely to continue spreading the virus in society first and addressing the rest after this high-risk population, prisoners or not, is controlled, then so be it. I must admit, though, the any effect of opening the vaccine up to prisoners first is unpredictable given the voluntariness of the procedure.
-Patrick Duggan
This is not a matter of who should be first on the ‘priority list’, rather a matter of trying to control the spread of the virus over all. There are high-risk groups in the general public as well as the population of prisoners, and no one person (incarcerated or not) is more socially qualified or deserving of have the vaccine.
ReplyDeleteLooking at this situation from the Utilitarian perspective, it seems that postponing the vaccination of the prisoners and instead releasing those vaccines to the general public would be a better idea. The Utilitarian perspective emphasizes that ethical decisions are based on creating the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, therefore, the population size of people who could be potentially infected among both populations should be taken into account.
In the prison the number of prisoners is for the most part a fixed amount- few come in and few leave at a time. The prisoners come in contact only with other each other and the employees of the facility (security guards, janitors, cooks, etc.), so the people exposed will be limited.
In comparison, looking at the general population, one person may come into contact with an infinite amount of people in one day, creating countless opportunities to spread the virus.
Since the general population is at a higher risk for infecting more people, the H1N1 vaccine should be withheld from the prisoners and instead given to the public. This does not mean that the prisoners should not be vaccinated at all, just that in terms of trying to contain the number of infections and creating the greatest good, inoculating the public before the prisoners would be more beneficial.
-Caitlin W
The idea of making the swine flu vaccine available to those in extremely high risk situations, such as those in prisons or other situations where people that may have compromised immune systems are living in close quarters is one that makes sense. I agree with many of the people that have posted above that from a utilitarian perspective this policy seems to be ethically acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThose that do not agree with this policy probably are approaching this from a deontological perspective and believe that giving preferential treatment to any group is wrong, because you are violating the rights of the people that aren’t in any such group. This doesn’t make much sense because there are clearly groups that don’t have a very high risk of infection, and even of the groups that have a high risk of infection, only those with pre-existing conditions are likely to die from this, or any other flu. It would even be ethically permissible to make the vaccine available in several stages to allow for those that have a higher risk of death to be able to have the flu shot before the general public.
Pandemics cause situations to arise when not everyone can be saved. Among ethical dilemmas associated with the allocation of scarce resources are a series of questions such as who will get priority access to a vaccine given the potential shortage of these essential resources and what obligations do health-care workers have to work regardless of risks to their health and the health of their families?
ReplyDeleteMany different ethical principles can be applied to rationing. The principle of equity requires the distribution of benefits and burdens to be fair. This principle sometimes conflicts with the principle of utility discussions, which may lead to giving priority to those who are worse-off in terms of severity of illness, vulnerable populations, and uninfected persons of high-risk. I agree with Jenna that prevention is key to influenza pandemic such as swine flu and that it is reasonable to first target high-risk groups who are likely to spread the disease rapidly.
Prisoners, who are of high-risk, should have some priority in receiving the vaccine. However, the government should not differentiate between prisoners and the public. They should focus on high-risk individuals likely to catch swine flue vs. healthy people. We must not discriminate against age, gender, physical and mental impairments, social status or political affiliation. We must include marginalized people, such as prison convicts and illegal immigrants, although they partially neglected the society that is to serve them. The only criteria we use should be justified by clinical evidence.
- Joyce Ganas
I agree with many all the previous comments above me of how other populations, like college students, that interact in close quarters over extended amounts of time should get the vaccine first or at least at the same of prisoners do. The priority of vaccine distribution should be based on a number of different criteria which include the risk that someone will spread the disease and the chances that if they are infected with the disease, the severity of the symptoms. The cost, availability and distribution method of the vaccine must also be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to many of the arguments above on utilitarianism and how distribution should be based on the potential of a healthy person versus someone that is sick in the working world and contributing to society, I believe that the distribution of the vaccine should be based purely on the health and well being of every individual, no matter the individuals status in society. Everyone is entitled to making choices that contribute to their own health; that choice is limited if the option of getting the vaccine is not available to individuals that need it.
Research has to be conducted to determine who the “at risk” groups are and the severity of the symptoms, if they do contract the disease. Studies on the risk of transmitting the disease also have to be conducted to determine who should get the vaccine first. The vaccine should be first distributed to individuals that have a high risk of contracting the disease with a deadly outcome and a high risk of spreading the disease. If prisoners happen to fall into this category, then by all means they should get the vaccine first, but there are other populations like high risk college students that should have the opportunity to receive the vaccine.
Many of the arguments above state that it is not right to give the vaccine to prisoners first on a base that they are already contained in a correctional facility. These arguments are incorrect because only when a population is infected do they then get quarantined. The purpose of giving the prisoners the vaccine first is so that the whole facility does not become infected. A correctional facility is no different than a university dormitory except for the fact that college students interact with more people. A college campus could potentially be a better breeding ground for the virus because there are more interactions with different people than at a correctional facility, increasing the likelihood of spreading the disease.
The bottom line is that research and studies have to be conducted to see who 1) are the most likely to contract the virus and 2) contract it with “bad” or deadly results. Of course the definition of “bad” is vague, but this is nonetheless a reasonable approach to distribute the vaccine purely on health and one owns well being.
In order to prevent swine flu from spreading, vaccines should be provided to those within the high-risk groups. High risk groups include those who are likely to contract and spread the disease, as well as dying from the disease. I agree with the article in that prisoners should be given priority, but simultaneously with other high-risk groups. As argued by Kant's theory of autonomy, prisoners are people (as Jenna had said). Just because they have committed crimes does not make them any less human. Many people have broken a law at least once in their life and were lucky enough to not have gotten caught or punished the same way as the prisoners; should they be considered law-abiding citizens who are eligible for receiving the vaccine? The circumstances in which people end up in prison are very different. Just because people are criminal does not less their opportunities to receive the vaccination.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that people of more important status or who would potentially contribute more to the world should be given priority. It is hard to draw the line between those who are more important and those who are not. Just because the potential is there does not mean that they are more important. The same could be said about a criminal, there is always the slightest potential that he/she could do great things. The point is priority should not be given to those who have the 'potential' to do good; priority should be given based on the facts. The fact is high-risk groups have a greater chance of getting swine flu and therefore, a greater chance of dying and so should be given priority.
The problem in this case is should the prisoners be the first to be vaccinated for the H1N1 virus? In this case we see a conflict with the issue of equality and equal distribution. There are many groups of people who would benefit from the H1N1 vaccination, and it can be considered unfair and a violation of equal distribution that prisoners are the first to receive this vaccination. The stakeholders in this dilemma are the prisoners, who live in a confined space and can easily spread the virus if infected, and the other vulnerable groups of people, such as children in elementary schools, and senior citizens in retirement homes who could just as easily spread the virus, but may not receive the vaccination if the prisoners are considered a priority. Also, the government is a stakeholder in that they are responsible for deciding who receives the vaccine. We know that the H1N1 virus effects those with a weaker immune system, such as children and the elderly, and that the virus can spread very quickly when in close quarters. We also know that prisoners are in prison for a reason, and many would argue from a utilitarian standpoint that reserving the vaccinations for others would promote that greatest benefit for society. We do not know what would happen if the prisoners went unvaccinated and spread H1N1 not only among the inmates but also to the prison staff, then their families ect… We do not know if some prisoners are soon to be released and the benefit they will provide once they return to society. Also, we do not know the consequences of not giving priority to the other susceptible groups. What if a child gets H1N1 then spreads it to their school ect… The government should be held responsible in this case and ideally they would be able to provide vaccinations to all those who need it, including inmates. But, the ethical solution, from a utilitarian standpoint would to vaccinate children first, because they will provide the greatest amount of good to society.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that prisoners are at high risk for spreading the disease, there are other people and communities that have an even higher risk, such as college students and people living in cities. Prisoners are contained, and usually don't leave the facility they reside in, whereas college students and people in the work force, particularly in cities, are utilizing public transportation, going out among large quantities of people, and generally creating an environment where a disease is easily transmitted. Looking at the dilemma from a Utilitarian view, we must consider the impact of the decision on the community as a whole. To do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, the people at the highest risk for spreading the disease should be vaccinated first. I do not believe that prisoners contained to their facility will spread the disease as much as students and people out and about in the population would. I disagree that a utilitarian would suggest giving the vaccine to those in jail first, since prisoners don't normally do anything to help the community. Yes, the workers in the prison would be safe and would not spread the virus, however when considering the greatest amount of people, this argument does not apply.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is a tricky subject, quality of life should also be regarded in this situation. I don't necessarily believe in this view, however from the point of view of this theory the loss of a prisoner is less of that of a student or a child that has potential to improve a community and be successful. A prisoner generally has a much lower moral status. This could also be thought of as utilitarian, since theoretically a student or child will be more beneficial to the most people in society than a prisoner will be.
However, we should also think about the equality theory of justice, that says everyone should be treated the same even though some people contribute more to society than others. For myself, I disagree with this theory, and think that to give the vaccine to prisoners first over other high risk groups that have higher moral status is not correct.
I also agree with Jenna... The swine flu vaccine should be given to those who are at the greatest risk and I don't think it should necessarily matter their background. In this case beneficence should be taken into consideration, in that people need to be doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Without any background in philosophy, it still logically makes sense that if a vast amount of prisoners catch the swine flu, it is more likely the disease will spread. However, if those at high risk are treated and the flu is contained or eliminated, the chances of it spreading are much lower.
ReplyDeleteAlso to be taken into consideration is the equality theory of justice. When referenced with a basis of cultural relativism, each person in that culture is entitled to the same treatment as everyone else. Prisoners are humans, as unnecessary to mention as that seems and their reasons for becoming a prisoner are extremely varied. Should a person who got caught steeling a few times as an adolescent be treated with the same cultural regulations as an adult guilty of multiple murders? Any inherent response to this question is going to be: no.
I think this situation has to be looked at more objectively than subjectively. In one aspect I do believe that a nonprisoner will have a different quality of lie than a prisoner, simply because any nonprisoner has infinitely more possibilities for potential in society. However, touching back on beneficence, the majority has to be taken into more consideration here than the stakeholders. Treating swine flu before it spreads will, in the future, be more beneficial to the community than treating people who have been deemed more "deserving."
As I was reading the other comments above, it seems that most of my thoughts have already been reflected upon by my classmates already, in some form or another. While I do believe that prison grounds are definitely breeding grounds for H1N1, there are countless other examples of places with very high risk of spreading H1N1, for example, any of the large dormitories on BU’s campus (ie Warren Towers, the Towers, Student Village 1 or 2), where students regularly come into contact with a large number of other students. I personally have experienced that I am more likely to get sick living in one of these large dormitories than in a more isolated place. The key difference between Warren Towers and a prison, however, is that a prison is a mostly closed system. The chances of H1N1 infecting a student living in Warren Towers are higher than that of an inmate being infected due to the fact that each and every student living in Warren Towers comes into contact with a large variety of different people, every day. The inmates in a prison most likely are only in contact with the other inmates of the prison, as well as the prison administration, as they are not allowed to come and go into the general population. If the prison is able to monitor the people coming into the prison facilities, they might be able to decrease the chances of an H1N1 infection in their prison.
ReplyDeleteBased on my above argument, I do not think that the prison system should NOT be given the vaccination. Despite my argument, they are still a very high-risk population that should be vaccinated, but the distinction I would like to make is that there are many examples of very similarly high-risk communities in the general public that should not have to wait an extended period of time for the vaccination. The vaccination should be made available to the public at the same time that they are sent to correctional facilities because there is no valid reason for the prison facilities to receive the vaccination early, which does not apply to the general public. The article mentions riots in a Cambridge jail upon rumors of H1N1 spreading there, which is a definite reason to vaccinate inmates, but is not a reason the vaccination should be made available exclusively to inmates first. Based on the theory of deontology, the state has a duty to make the vaccinations publicly available as soon as possible to promote widespread health, but by giving the vaccine to one specific population before making it publicly available, the state is not acting deontologically because the general population has to wait an extended period of time compared to the prison inmates, during which time it is possible that they may even get infected by H1N1.
In summation, I think that it is fair to give the prison inmates the H1N1 vaccination immediately when it is available, but it is not fair to withhold the vaccine from the general population if it is being distributed to prison inmates and administration, as there are other arguably equal communities that share the high-risk for H1N1 infection.
I agree with the previous comments that although prisoners did perform no good, they should not be denied protection from a fast spreading disease. The spread of swine flu is rapidly increasing and in order to control and stop this spread, I think all action needs to be taken to prevent it, even if it does involve inoculating prisoners. The close quarters in prisons are a breeding ground for fast spread of multiple viruses and diseases. Thus, as a preventative measure, vaccines should be given to prevent the spread of the disease before it becomes a problem. Even though this is probably a stretch, there are other people, who are not prisoners, that guard the prisoners and work in the prisons. These are innocent people and they should be protected from the virus as well.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is such a complicated situation because part of me questions why we should be saving a life that killed another while another part of me believes that we should not deny preventative vaccinations from people who would be potentially exposed to the virus. According to utilitarian principles, we should take an action that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Now in this situation, there is two greatest goods. First, by preventing the spread of swine flu in the prisons, we are providing health to all of the prisoners. However, the prisoners performed malice acts against society. By protecting the prisoners and insuring their health, we are helping people who might not provide good to society.
If actions are taken to prevent the spread of swine flu in prisons, I feel that it is absolutely necessary for the government to promise to give healthcare to other potentially risky groups. According to the article, the inmates will receive the vaccine two weeks before the general public. To achieve a state of ethical fairness, I think that the vaccine should be available to inmates and people with high risk at the same time.
-Jessica Graber
It seems reasonable that prisons are somewhat of a flu breeding ground and I think the main goal of health officials should be to prevent the spread of H1N1 by giving the vaccinations to vulnerable groups or locations. Having said that, I think it only makes sense to not limit this to prisons and distribute the vaccinations to other groups that are as susceptible and could easily spread the flu to many other people. College campuses could likely be as vulnerable to spreading the flu to a large number of people.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have no problem with the fact that prisoners could receive the vaccinations before others (non-prisoners) because again a prison is a susceptible place with close quarters, large numbers of people and in relatively unsanitary conditions. So, from a health standpoint it is in the best interest of the population to target these more serious situations first.
It is also important to keep in mind that the ramifications of denying prisoners flu shots could be worse than the time, effort and cost of the vaccinations. If prisoners did not receive the flu shot and became ill with the flu, were sent to a hospital and given more extensive medical care, it would surely be a higher expense for the government.
In cases such as these the main priority ought to be prevention and containment. Regardless of who you are, your ethical contribution, your favorite color, in order to reduce the increasing cases of those affected, there must be a significant stress put on treating the illness before it even emerges. Prevention comes in varied forms; Americans put too much reliance on drugs to alleviate their problems instead of researching ways they themselves can sustain good health. I personally don’t think the several days makes that significant of a difference in the distribution of the vaccination. When it comes down to it I think the problem’s with our healthcare system, there is too much thought behind the allocation of it. It shouldn’t even be a question of who gets the specific benefits of healthcare, but rather why everyone isn’t designated the innate right to it. We are all humans, and have the right to proper healthcare in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteLooking through the perspective of a deontologist, what determines if an act of wrong or right is if the act is done with the inclination towards one’s duty. And as said before, the duty of American healthcare is to serve all those in need, to promote well being amongst all. As the famous deontologist Kant stated, “treat people as ends within themselves, rather than just a means to an end”, which grants all individuals autonomy and intrinsic worth.
What needs to be realized is, although most are in prison with the confirmed reality that they have done some wrong, there are people who aren’t in prison and have a moral conscience that deems them worse than those already confined. On another note, there are varying degrees at which we evaluate what deciphers a “bad person”, not everyone in jail is a child rapist serial killer. Jails ARE filled with “average” hard working citizens being charged with a small misdemeanor because of one bad decision in life. The only difference between this category of people and you and me is that during their “slip up” someone was watching.
I think this situation should be evaluated on a strictly neutral basis, but evaluating each group in regards to which is at the “highest risk” seems correct on the government’s part. Without these principles the government then assumes the role of God in deciding who is more deserving of the vaccine in comparison to others. I think it’s hypocritical to say that all those in prison are somehow too immoral to deserve a second chance at a healthy righteous life.
All people have a fundamental right to receive the care and treatment they need. Speaking in terms of the US, as our Constitution outlines, all US citizens have the right to enjoy and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." In order to do so to the fullest extent possible, it seems that one would have to be healthy and alive. Therefore, it seems justifiable to say that people, who as citizens, have the rights to "secure the blessings of liberty" in this country, require healthcare to do so.
ReplyDeleteAlthough prisoners have involuntarily given up many of the freedoms guarantueed to US Citizens, they have not lost the fundamental right that all people have to live. If sustaining life among a high risk populations of individuals, whether prisoners or not, requires a vaccination, a treatment, or another sort of preventative care, it seem justifiable that we uphold this fundamental right to life by providing a vaccination/treatment that will prevent against a potentially life threatening illness.
One other thing, however, also interests me about the idea that prisoners may receive H1N1 vaccines before the public. It has been suggested in some circles that because the H1N1 vaccine is so new and has been demanded in such high quantities so quickly, that it is not completely understood what the effects or effectiveness of the drug will be because the testing and studies about the vaccine are still pending. Does this change the situation? Is it justifiable for prisoners to receive the vaccine because they are a high risk population, but also because prisoners are a vulnerable population that can be used as test subjects to track the effectiveness of a new vaccine before it is released to the public? With this in mind, perhaps it is not an absolute advantage for prisoners to be vaccinated first. Does that make a difference as to whether or not prisoners should receive the vaccine before the general public?
Although Prisoner’s are being punished for their crimes, their loss of freedom should be the only punishment they should be forced to endure. An increased risk of contracting a potentially deadly illness should not be included. This is just common knowledge that even prisoners are people and deserve the same treatment in certain circumstances as others. In addition to that, prisoners are at increased risk because as the Massachusetts State Sherrif says, jails are the perfect breeding grounds for the H1N1 flu. The close quarters and a large number of individuals housed in a small enclosure only add to the chance of exposure to the H1N1 flu. On top of those increased risk factors, many of the prisoners also suffer from different diseases, such as AIDS that would put those individuals in the high-risk group. Under these conditions and considering these circumstances, in addition to the fundamental belief that we are all humans and deserve the same treatment, I agree with the Massachusetts health officials in their decision to give H1N1 flu vaccinations to state prisoners before the rest of the population.
ReplyDeleteState Senator Mark Montigny said several groups are more vulnerable than prisoners and The New Bedford Democrat said the inoculations should be given to the public immediately. Although children or some particular groups may be at higher risk, I believe it is best to first inoculate prisoners for a few simple reasons. Firstly the difference between the schedules release day for prisoners and the general public are separated by less than two weeks. Public health may also be a concern. This could be a concern because many of these prisoners could be released while sick or spread the H1N1 flu to visitors in addition to prison guards, lawyers, and police.
I agree with many of the people that have posted above that from a utilitarian perspective this policy seems to be ethically acceptable. Those that do not agree with this policy probably are approaching this from a deontological perspective and believe that giving preferential treatment to any group is wrong, because you are violating the rights of the people that aren’t in any such group. While that viewpoint is understandable since we are all humans, it is important to see that the existence of each human relies on special treatment for certain individuals who have underlying diseases which put them at risk for death.
In the end, I feel it is best to provide the vaccine to those who need it first. The prisoners are undoubtedly in a high-risk group for not only contracting the H1N1 flu, but suffering from complications or dying from it. Therefore, prisoners should be treated as any other high risk group and should be able to receive the inoculation first as suggested by Massachusetts health officials.
-KEENAN