Vaccine, a moral obligation?

Vaccine as a right or a duty

Refusing to vaccinate yourself against a serious disease seems counter-intuitive. But is it morally wrong? – If you view the vaccination as an obligation, you might see it that way. But instead, it is a huge benefit, which it quite simply seems unnecessary not to take advantage of, says Petra Anderson, researcher in practical philosophy.

There is a debate in several countries about how to handle people who for some reason do not want to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Do you perhaps only have yourself to blame if you refuse to be vaccinated and then fall ill? And should those who take the vaccination have certain benefits that the unvaccinated do not? – These kinds of questions arise if you view the vaccination as a duty to society, rather than, which is more reasonable, as a benefit, Petra Anderson argues. You could compare it to the regular child vaccination schedule, which most parents consider a major benefit.

According to the Swedish Health and Medical Services Act, you cannot force anyone to be vaccinated. And to somehow distinguish between people who are vaccinated and people who, for some reason, choose not to be, sounds disconcerting, Petra Andersson argues. – By refusing to get vaccinated, you primarily risk harming yourself, but hardly anyone else, except for incurring a cost to society if you fall ill. But in other circumstances we do not require people to live perfect lives in order to be eligible for healthcare. Those who do not want to be vaccinated risk suffering the adverse effect of maybe having to continue to isolate. It would be sad for them, but not for society as a whole. Among those opposed to the vaccination we find a small group that oppose all kinds of vaccinations on ideological grounds. But most of those who are hesitant probably are so out of fear of serious adverse effects, partly because the vaccine was developed so rapidly and partly because there are, naturally, no long-term studies available.

– It is not necessarily a bad thing to be cautious about the substances you are willing to ingest or inject. But a virus is also a type of substance that enters the body, and which may have very serious consequences. Many people seem to believe that natural substances are less

– Dividing people into the vaccinated and the unvaccinated sounds unreasonable, and it is not something that we would accept in other circumstances, Petra Andersson points out.

But a virus is also a type of substance that enters the body, and which may have very serious consequences.

PETRA ANDERSSON

harmful than substances developed under controlled conditions in a laboratory, and that is somewhat peculiar.

Several countries, including Sweden, have started to require negative COVID-19 tests for foreign citizens to be able to enter the country. That is also a way of sorting people into different categories. – Yes, but having special requirements to protect your own population still seems justified. However, refugees present a problem: should they also be refused entry if they cannot present a negative test result, and how would they be able to?

But the overarching moral dilemma is not about individuals, it is about the fact that the wealthier parts of the world have managed to seize large quantities of vaccine, while the poorer parts of the world have to settle for considerably less, Petra Anderson points out. – It would not have been unreasonable to give priority to regions where people have limited access to healthcare, and thus cannot receive help if they become infected. But as so often happens, it is not need, but ability to pay that governs where the drugs are distributed. I am afraid I have no realistic answer to the question of how to resolve this thorny issue.

■ Facts

From February 6, any foreign national must present a negative COVID-19 test to be able to enter Sweden. Similar rules apply to Swedes who wish to travel to other countries.