Question

Do We Sacrifice Lives to Save the Economy? Reading #1 for the week asks this question. Parts of the article, which seek to relate this point of view for political purposes, have been edited. This is an ethics course, and the politics are not part of this discussion. The author correctly reminds the reader that science has not yet fixed the answers to certain very important aspects of the question: Is it possible to sufficiently isolate any single population in a pandemic to even attempt it? The answer to this is likely, probably not, as pandemics show increased numbers among any restricted populations. As seen in the 2020 pandemic, nursing homes, prisons, meet packing plants, indeed any groups in close proximity showed significantly increased infection rates. Are mortality rates sufficiently low enough in the general population to justify their unrestricted exposure? The answer to this is: it depends. For the H1N1 Pandemic the answer was yes, for the COVID 19 Pandemic the answer appears to be no. Significant numbers of people not in the elderly, high-risk population have died (final figures yet to be determined). For the next pandemic, who knows? And the problem is, that no one will know until well into the pandemic. Is this the ethical path we want to go down? Personalize your response to the next pandemic. Include the following aspects in the discussion: There are multiple aspects to this question. For this discussion, focus only on choosing to allow natural infection or restricting contact to protect the most vulnerable State your Decision (note I say Decision here, not opinion. Opinions can be off-the-cuff and very self-centered. Decisions use the pondering on multiple points of view, include ethical considerations, are carefully thought-out, and are conscientious enough to empower actions) Support your decision with an ethical principle (ex. Utilitarian or Deontological) Discuss peers’ decisions, exploring the consequences of decisions (please review the netiquette rules, any inappropriate posts will be d

Answer 1

Decision:

In facing the question of whether to allow natural infection or restrict contact to protect the most vulnerable during a pandemic, my decision is to prioritize restricting contact to protect the most vulnerable.

Ethical Principle: Utilitarianism

My decision is grounded in the ethical principle of utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize overall well-being and minimize harm for the greatest number of people. By restricting contact to protect the most vulnerable, the aim is to reduce the severity of the pandemic's impact on those at the highest risk of severe illness or mortality. This decision aligns with the utilitarian goal of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number.

Rationale:

Minimizing Harm: Restricting contact aims to minimize harm by preventing the spread of the virus among populations at higher risk, particularly the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. This approach acknowledges the potential severity of the consequences for these vulnerable groups.

Preserving Healthcare Resources: Prioritizing protection for the most vulnerable helps in preserving healthcare resources. By preventing a surge in severe cases, the healthcare system can better manage the load, ensuring that individuals receive adequate care without overwhelming medical facilities.

Long-Term Well-being: Considering the long-term impact, protecting the vulnerable supports the well-being of families and communities. It acknowledges the potential long-lasting effects of losing loved ones and the societal repercussions of significant mortality rates.

Peers' Decisions:

I anticipate a variety of perspectives from peers, reflecting diverse ethical principles and values. Some may argue for allowing natural infection based on personal freedom and the potential development of herd immunity. Others may align with the decision to restrict contact, emphasizing the moral obligation to safeguard vulnerable populations.

Consequences of Decisions:

Allowing Natural Infection:

Potential Benefits: Faster development of herd immunity, less economic disruption due to fewer restrictions.

Potential Harms: Higher mortality rates, overwhelming healthcare systems, and potential long-term health consequences for those infected.

Restricting Contact:

Potential Benefits: Reduced mortality among vulnerable groups, better control of the spread, preservation of healthcare resources, and long-term well-being of communities.

Potential Harms: Economic challenges, social isolation, and concerns about individual freedoms.

Conclusion:

While acknowledging the complexity of the decision, the utilitarian approach to restrict contact and protect the most vulnerable prioritizes overall well-being and minimizes harm, aligning with ethical considerations for the greater good. It recognizes the interconnectedness of individuals and communities in navigating the challenges posed by a pandemic.