There are no in‐principle ethical objections to controlled voluntary SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

Bioethics 35 (3):237-245 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, some authors have advocated a program of controlled voluntary infection (CVI) with SARS‐CoV‐2. Under CVI, during periods where the medical system is under capacity, volunteers from low‐risk groups would be intentionally infected after giving informed consent, and then quarantined until they have developed immunity. Proponents claim that this could have benefits for society, such as building herd immunity and ensuring that critical workers won’t be incapacitated during the peak of the infection. They also claim that this could have benefits for individuals, such as being safely exempted from lockdown measures and (for individuals who are likely to be infected anyway) ensuring that the infection happens under relatively less dangerous conditions. Some respond that CVI would unethical. Here, I argue that, while CVI may or may not be ill‐advised for empirical reasons, there are no in‐principle ethical objections to it (i.e., if CVI would work as well as its proponents think, it would be ethical to implement it). I present three arguments for this conclusion. The first is an argument from informed consent: informed consent to relevantly similar medical procedures renders performing these procedures permissible, so informed consent to CVI would render it permissible. The second is an argument from reasonable beneficence: it draws on recent work by Caspar Hare on relevantly similar choices to argue that CVI is permissible. The third is an argument from precedent: smallpox variolation was permissible, and CVI is relevantly similar to that, so CVI is permissible.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Infection-acquired versus vaccine-induced immunity against covid-19.Tsvetelina Velikova - 2021 - Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics 2 (1):29-35.
Subsequent Consent and Blameworthiness.Jason Chen - 2020 - HEC Forum 32 (3):239-251.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-01-05

Downloads
29 (#135,560)

6 months
10 (#1,198,792)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Dustin Crummett
University of Notre Dame

Citations of this work

Pandemic Ethics and Status Quo Risk.Richard Yetter Chappell - 2022 - Public Health Ethics 15 (1):64-73.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references