PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
National vaccination programs against SARS-CoV2 in South America played an important role in the timely response to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, was an ethical approach capable of guaranteeing greater benefit to the population through vaccination being applied? To answer this question, my aim was to analyze the national vaccination programs of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru to identify the extent to which they aligned with the utilitarianism and prioritarianism oriented ethical approaches when assigning the vaccine against COVID-19. I start from the hypothesis that all the selected countries propose vaccination policies with possible prioritarian and/or utilitarian ethical approaches, however, those that align with prioritarianism manage to better adhere to the moral duties of social justice. To demonstrate my hypothesis, I have integrated the socio-economic information, analyzed the coverage strategies of each country and tried to frame them with the proposed ethical approaches, to finally present arguments for and against these approaches. I conclude that, unlike utilitarianism, the application of prioritarianism to the vaccine allocation schemes of the four countries analyzed allowed prioritizing the vaccine in those who are worse off in terms of social justice, and that, unequivocally, includes the severely ill.
摘要：
南美洲的国家SARS-CoV2疫苗接种计划在及时应对COVID-19大流行方面发挥了重要作用，然而,Isanethicalapproachcapableofassurancegreaterbenefittothepopulationthroughvaccinationbeingapplied?Toanswerthisquestion,我的目的是分析阿根廷的国家疫苗接种计划，巴西,智利,和秘鲁，以确定在分配针对COVID-19的疫苗时，它们与功利主义和优先主义导向的伦理方法在多大程度上保持一致。我从一个假设开始，即所有选定的国家都提出了疫苗接种政策，可能采用优先主义和/或功利主义的伦理方法，然而,那些与优先主义相一致的人设法更好地遵守社会正义的道德义务。为了证明我的假设，我整合了社会经济信息，分析了每个国家的覆盖战略，并试图用拟议的伦理方法来构建它们，最后提出支持和反对这些方法的论点。我的结论是，与功利主义不同，将优先主义应用于所分析的四个国家的疫苗分配计划，允许在社会正义方面较差的人中优先考虑疫苗，而且，毫不含糊地,包括重病人。
