Wednesday, December 16, 2009
H1N1 Vaccine Revisited
In light of the H1N1 outbreak that began last spring, there was extreme determination to create and distribute large quantities of vaccine to protect against the virus. One of the most targeted populations for this vaccine have been children. The following article highlights a current recall of H1N1 vaccine that was targeted for young children. Although the vaccine poses no health risks to the children, the vaccine is not potent enough. Taking the utilitarian approach (the greatest good for the greatest number of people), is there a moral problem here? Is it safe to say that the companies producing the vaccine did so too quickly thus compromising the positive affect they could have? More info is available here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The vaccine should not have been released if it was not potent enough to properly protect against the H1N1 flu virus. It is ridiculous that the vaccine was released and the manufacturer stated that all four lots passed the tests, when only a short time later they found out they failed. Taking the Utilitarian approach, the greatest good for the greatest number would have been fulfilled by creating a vaccine that would fully protect children and that was potent enough. However, theres is also the idea that these children may not have been protected in any sense had this less potent vaccine not been released. Although it has been recalled, the manufacturer believes that children should still be fully protected as long as they get the second dose. In a sense, this is better than nothing and the children will at least be protected. However, it would have been ideal for the potency to be maximum. This recall could be due to the fact that the company rushed to release the vaccine, motivated by money or other factors.
ReplyDeleteThe moral problem at hand is, that individuals paid, or had insurance companies pay for their children to recieve a vaccine that is now deemed to be not potent enough. Because of the media attention H1N1 has recieved, many individuals have fear about H1N1, espeically if they or their family members fall within the categories of those deemd to be high risk, including children. The sad part is, that while the CDC stressed that the vaccine was not recalled for safety issues, this could still cause a fallout in trust by some parents. Vaccines in general have been experienceing a backlash, by many who are unsure about the safety of the vaccines and I feel this could further fuel their fire. They might argue, if one vaccine passed all the tests but wasn't potent enough despite that, then whats to say that vaccines who pass all tests and deemed to be safe are safe? I think in generally, there is a conflict with meeting the demand for vaccine for H1N1, a feared disease, and the time required to properly created and manufacture such a vaccine. Obviously, the population wants protection but at what cost? Luckily, while they may have been speedy in releasing this round of H1N1 no safety issues were raised. However, this compromises the publics trust of vaccine manufactures and potentially raises costs if indivduals recieveing this batch do get H1N1 as a result of the lack of potency.
ReplyDelete-A.Rabens
It seems like there was a conflict of interests in this situation. The drug company probably made the vaccine to make money off of the H1N1 scare because they knew that after all of the media coverage of this outbreak people would probably buy the vaccine. They probably made it for children because they knew that parents would be even more scared that their children would get the flu and would be more likely to buy it for their kids than for themselves alone. This is a substantial violation of Kantian ethics that people may not be used as a means to an end, which it looks like the drug company tried to do by preemptively selling an impotent vaccine. Utilitarian ethics were also violated here. If the company had had the greatest good for the greatest number at heart, they would have made sure the vaccine was ready before it could do that.
ReplyDeleteIsabel Shanahan