What’s Wrong With Vaccine Nationalism?

VACCINE NATIONALISM
by (Name)
Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
School (University)
City and State
Date
Vaccine Nationalism
Global vaccine distribution raises controversial issues revolving around ethics, logic and public health. These issues have attracted the attention of health professionals, diplomats, economists and the general public. Many vaccine manufacturers, national leaders, and international organizations recognize ethics as the core element in deciding whether or not to practice vaccine nationalism (Emanuel et al., 2020, p. 1309). Despite this recognition, the stakeholders have made little progress toward explaining what constitutes equitable vaccine distribution. Many have endorsed fair vaccine allocation without delineating recommendations. Some have raised concerns over vaccine nationalism. Vaccine nationalism is the hoarding of vaccinations by manufacturers during an outbreak of disease to prioritize their own countries before making them available in other regions (Riaz et al., 2021, p. 1).
This strategy occurs when wealthy economies sign deals with pharmaceutical companies to distribute jabs to their own countries before making them available to other nations. The aim is to have excess shots and vaccinate the maximum number of people irrespective of the limited supply to other parts of the world (Riaz et al., 2021, p.1). This strategy was common during the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed millions of people. During this period, high-income countries scrambled for vaccines, forcing them to engage in vaccine nationalism and hindering the manufacturer's ability to supply globally. COVID-19 manufacturers hoarded vaccines to ensure their populations were safe, leaving other regions vulnerable to adverse effects of the pandemic. Even before many approved pharmaceutical companies completed their clinical trials, high income countries like the United States, Britain, Japan and the European block had procured millions of doses of promising vaccines (Riaz, et al., 2021). This was a prudent move in the United Kingdom (Riaz, et al., 2021).
After the disturbing death toll, many vulnerable populations and emergency workers received their first doses of either AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines. According to Katz et al. (2021), the UK purchased over 340 million shots in development: about five doses for each person, whereas the US secured around 800 million doses of more than six vaccines, with an opportunity to purchase additional one billion doses. International organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO) have condemned this practice, citing the risk of vaccine mutation and shortage of vaccines in underprivileged countries. This essay answers the question: - what is wrong with vaccine nationalism? The essay begins by examining vaccine nationalism from an ethical perspective. It then highlights the problems or flaws associated with vaccine nationalism that make critics reject it. From an individual standpoint, vaccine nationalism is a wrong strategy because it is ethically indefensible and harms every country both economically and healthwise.
What is wrong with Vaccine Nationalism?
Firstly, vaccine nationalism is ethically indefensible, meaning it is completely wrong or unacceptable. Ethical principles dictate that there should be equitable allocation of limited, life-saving resources (Jeffrey, 2020, P. 497). Present studies reveal that pharmaceutical companies often fail to achieve global distributive justice during vaccine allocation because of the interference by wealthy companies that always scramble for shots during a pandemic. According to Emanuel, et al., (2021), the current strategies for distributing vaccines are ethically indefensible. Drawing evidence from the recent incident: COVID-19, it is worth noting that global geopolitical forces influenced the disproportionate vaccine demand (Emanuel, et al., 2020). They placed less fortunate countries last in line in procurement of vaccines. High-income nations accessed and hoarded disproportionate amounts of limited jabs. This is what made vaccine nationalism to flourish despite being antithetical.
According to critics, nationality should not determine people’s access to lifesaving resources. They claim that although countries have diplomatic relationships, these ties do not justify total priority. They only vindicate some priority according to specific criteria such as virus transmission and vulnerability (Emanuel et al., 2020, 1309). Additionally, these relations extend across borders, subjecting citizens of various nations to conjoint institutions (Emanuel et al., 2020, p. 1309). Governments also play a significant cross-border role of fulfilling vital human needs such as basic health, especially in a worldwide health crisis.
Since a global pandemic or outbreak affects every nation, equal moral concern requires treating everyone fairly to prevent the emergence of deadly variants in an existing virus. A fair vaccine distribution among nations mitigates growing concerns about public health, economy and other damages caused by the virus (Liu, et al., 2020). From a radical cosmopolitan perspective, people everywhere are equal in all moral contexts. The global vaccine distribution does not require an individual’s national origin to dictate vaccine access and availability because it is entirely out of people’s control. According to Emanuel et al. (2021, P. 545), human equality justifies the need to fight against vaccine nationalism. Favoring citizens during a global epidemic violates the principle of equality.
Secondly, vaccine nationalism prevents access to treatment when resources are limited. According to (Jeffrey, 2020, p. 497), priority setting and rationing of scarce resources are problems that National Health Service (NHS) has faced for eons. Utilitarians have argued that saving as many lives as possible remains the primary goal of NHS (Jeffrey, 2020). This goal is only achievable with equity and equality in resource allocation. Fairness means that every person's life is valuable in life-and-death situations (Jeffrey, 2020, p. 497). Every person, regardless of age, gender, origin, class, religion, status or political affiliation, has the same dignity, moral value and the right to equal treatment (Jeffrey, 2020). For that reason, nobody should receive privileged treatment at other people's expense based on their position, ability to pay, or social status (Emanuel et al., 2021). In case of an ethical dilemma, there should be a transparent discussion with the public.
If the resources are scarce to treat a virus, every effort must be made to increase the availability of resources. However, if there is a vaccine shortage that makes fair distribution impossible, the least unfair solution must be considered (Jeffrey, 2020, p. 497). The process should focus on containing the infection and saving many infected individuals in life-threatening conditions (Emanuel, et al., 2021). Health care facilities should evaluate patients requiring intensive care using the same criteria. Jeffrey (2020, p. 497) claimed that uneven rules could only be justifiable if they result in more effective containment or saving a maximum number of lives, such as giving healthcare and front-line workers and people with underlying conditions a priority.
Thirdly, vaccine nationalism causes vaccine shortage in low-income countries, putting the lives of citizens in these countries at a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Utilitarians have argued that hoarding a vaccine and distributing the jabs unequally without a justifiable reason is unethical (Jeffrey, 2020, p. 497). It is evident that wealthy nations do not use any criteria when pursuing bilateral agreements. They always aim to secure as many shots as possible because they have funds to do so, leaving few vaccines available for middle-and low-income nations. The worst scenario is that some high-income countries stay with the extra vaccines even after vaccinating all their citizens, while other poorer nations encounter vaccine shortages. This is an unethical practice since it puts the lives of many people in low-income countries at risk.
Evidence of vaccine nationalism putting lives of many people in low and middle-income countries points not only to the COVID-19 pandemic but also to the Swine flu or H1N1 virus that killed over 284, 000 people worldwide in 2009 (Riaz et al., 2021). This pandemic prompted vaccine development which occurred within seven months. However, most wealthy nations turned to pharmaceutical firms within their own borders for manufacturing. These countries negotiated large advance orders for the jab, crowding out low-income countries. Although most wealthy nations like the US promised to make donations to less fortunate countries, they only carried these donations after ensuring that their populations were safe (Riaz et al., 2021). As a result, the vaccine distribution was solely based on the high-income country's purchasing power, not the transmission risk.
Fourthly, vaccine nationalism leads to virus mutation. The WHO warned that hoarding vaccine to give countries to give manufacturing or high-income countries a priority would allow the virus to mutate in other non-vaccinated regions (Riaz, et al., 2021). COVID-19, for instance, proved its ability to quickly and efficiently mutate when allowed to ravage unchecked. Further mutations are likely to occur when the virus infects more people, and this can inevitably allow an escape mutation to surface.
An escape mutation is a mutation that weakens the ability of a vaccine to prevent serious illness (Emanuel et al., 2021). This mutation makes jab non-responsive to the virus by weakening the vaccine’s immune r...