Ethical Argument

Part 1

            I think it is unethical for countries to prioritize COVID-19 vaccines to their citizens instead of ensuring that vaccines are equitably distributed globally. Through vaccine cosmopolitanism and distributive justice, the debate on whether the government should advocate for vaccine nationality is looked into. Both concepts support that it is ethical for a country to ensure that vaccines are equally distributed regardless of citizenship. Through vaccine cosmopolitanism, countries appreciate that citizenship in other countries is irrelevant when supplying vaccines. It is the “view of distributive justice for vaccines, according to which community membership—in particular, citizenship or belonging to a nation—is ethically irrelevant” (Ferguson and Caplan 2). Therefore, a country supplies vaccines to other countries irrespective of the country’s citizenship. Ideally, distributive justice shows that there should be fairness in the way goods and services such as vaccines are distributed in society. Vaccine nationalism has been the major cause of preventing the equal distribution of COVID-19 vaccine internationally.

            Justice demands that vaccine distribution develop other allocation criteria apart from national identities. Distributing the COVID-19 vaccine to a national level is unethical as only groups of people, such as health workers and individuals whose lives are at a high risk of being infected by the virus, are prioritized. Vaccine cosmopolitanism advocates for the international distribution of the vaccine by scaling up the type of vaccine nationality. Through vaccine cosmopolitanism, unethical distribution of the vaccine is implied through the unjustness of a country. Despite a country having a scarce vaccine, it will be unjust to protect its first-phase population until it is made enough for distribution to a larger population internationally (Jean-Jacques and Bauchner 829). Countries should promote the ethical distribution of the vaccine by waiting until the supply increases to impartial such that justice will be promoted at the global level. When a country prioritizes distributing the vaccine nationally other than equal distribution globally, it only means that some countries may get underprivileged to receive the unethical vaccine. Besides, ugly vaccine nationalism as a type of vaccine nationalism is unethical because it “denies the equal worth of persons, saying that the lives and interests of one’s own citizens are the only valuable ones or are always more valuable than those of others” (Ferguson and Caplan 4). This type of vaccine nationalism demonstrates the unequal worth of individuals as it upholds that its citizens’ lives are more valuable than that of other citizens.

            Frameworks for the equality in distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine internationally should be categorized as ethical and not as a declaration for power. Employing distributive justice in the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine will enhance ethics through fairness in all countries. It is unethical for a country to provide the vaccine to its citizens instead of equally distributing the vaccine globally, as the importance of benefiting people and preventing harm is not fully achieved. Benefiting people and preventing harm is considered to be very vital in ethical theories (Emanuel et al. 1310). It becomes unethical as people from other countries with no vaccine distribution may not be protected from the virus, leading to death. This is quoted by Nambibia’s president that “it is a pity that we have a situation where, in some countries, citizens are at a stage of receiving booster shots, while in other countries, many are still waiting to receive their first doses” (United Nations par. 3). It is also unethical because other benefits such as reducing poverty and social hardships are not achieved as they should be in other countries. When a country prioritizes its citizens other than being equal globally, it becomes unethical as the disadvantaged are not considered.

According to global health, focusing on the disadvantaged in society is ethical. The distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine should reflect a special focus for the disadvantaged through equity in global distribution. It would be ethical if the vaccine is distributed to every country in different quantities to benefit all groups of people, including the disadvantaged.  The UNICEF states that “Equitable vaccine distribution is a humanitarian imperative” (UNICEF par 1). For instance, international organizations and other countries can use the Fair Priority Model to ensure ethical values are implemented (Emanuel et al. 1310). This will also help the international organizations distribute the vaccine fairly and equitably.

            Vaccine nationalism is unethical as it does not respect human rights. In most cases, people have less control over their country of residence. It becomes unethical when a wealthy country keeps the COVID-19 vaccine to its citizens’ usage while people in middle and low-income countries are not getting access to the vaccine and are dying and being buried in mass graves (Hassoun 2). National leaders are also not justified to help their citizens first as they are supposed to present equity in the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine despite citizenship as it is ethically irrelevant. Countries should follow ethics demonstrated by organizations such as UNICEF. The organization aimed to donate solar-powered fridges and syringes to developing countries by the end of 2020 and 2021 (Hassoun 2). This step taken to distribute vaccine resources internationally is ethical as it will ensure that all countries are equally catered for in the COVID-19 pandemic. To make the world a better place, countries must ensure equal distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine in all countries.

Part 2

However, opposing views might argue that it is ethical for countries to prioritize COVID-19 vaccines before distributing the vaccine globally. Vaccine distribution should be global; however, members of the manufacturing country should be the first to benefit from the vaccine. This ensures that the spread of the virus is cubed to prevent the virus from spreading to other countries. Vaccine nationalism, which prioritizes population at the national level, is essential (Ferguson and Caplan 3). It enables most governments to use laws and mechanisms that prioritize vaccine nationalism in the future. It also ensures that the government has to duty to offer vaccines to citizens first before distributing the vaccine globally (Vanderslott et al. 2). However, cosmopolitanism advocates for equal vaccine distribution, which may leave other countries without enough vaccines because of the move to prioritize countries that need more help. Therefore, the government has to prioritize the vaccine to its citizen first. 

Most governments are bound by various laws to protect their citizens. Due to these laws, most governments have ensured that their citizens get the vaccine first before distributing globally to protect their rights, such as the right to good health. Most countries have dwell in vaccine nationalism due to differences in COVID- 19 vaccines (Ferguson and Caplan 3). Most countries are working on a framework that depends first on whether their citizens have fully received the vaccines before joining the global distribution of vaccines. In addition, to initiate an equitable vaccine distribution, it is vital to have an optimal level of priority. Countries that support vaccine nationalism have kept it below one, whereas other countries are still above one. When a government reaches the optimal level of priority, it should release the vaccines to other countries to benefit. 

Pharmaceutical companies are selling vaccines at very high prices. Due to the vaccine’s high prices, the countries that acquire them maintain vaccine nationalism before distributing the vaccine globally. Also, governments of wealthy countries like the USA “have poured billions of dollars into helping drug companies develop vaccines and are spending billions more to buy doses” (Apuzzo and Gebrekidan par.2). In the move to ensure vaccine nationalism, most countries have made it mandatory for their citizen to receive the vaccines. Other countries have generated policy that governs vaccine rollout in their nation, such as it is mandatory for every health worker to have been fully vaccinated before attending to a patient.

Just as cosmopolitans come in different ways, nationalism too exists in weaker and stronger forms. In this case, an intermediary nationalist position may set an argument that limited national partiality in allocating the vaccines would not be an obstacle to justice consideration but can be among them (Holzer et al. 3). Countries have major responsibilities to prioritize their citizens. However, prioritizing own population is not reconciled with recognizing certain duties toward all persons regardless of their country or identity; in the case of this argument, a question such as how wealthier countries support developing countries. Also, if they can buy the vaccine for the whole population, there should be a limit to which a country can buy a vaccine from the manufacturer (Maxmen para 7). Since there is no global policy governing how countries should distribute their vaccine or how non-participating countries should be handled, most countries have maintained distributing their vaccine to their respective citizens before globally distributing the vaccine.

The major problem hindering developing countries from having the vaccine for them and initiating vaccine nationalism is that most do not have the purchasing power to earn good deals. Moreover, there are three types of vaccine nationalism the good, the blind, and the ugly. Ugly vaccine nationalism denies equal distribution of vaccines saying that the life of its citizen matters the most than the rest. Blind vaccine nationalism allows equal worth of individuals; however, it never acknowledges the equal worth of person across its borders. Good vaccine nationalism acknowledges the equal worth of individuals and ensures that the obligations of other individuals across the globe are met. Most government who uses vaccine nationalism also feel the weight to protect their people first before joining the cosmopolitan vaccine initiative. 

Both vaccine nationalism and cosmopolitanism are necessary when distributing vaccines in a country. However, it is important to note that distributing vaccines benefits the major population and prevents harm. Therefore, the distribution of vaccines should ensure that it reaches a certain country and reaches other countries equally. Equal distribution of the vaccine globally is ethical, and thus countries should consider distributing vaccines ethically.