Vogelgrippe-Impfstoff: das eingebildete ethische Dilemma
Junge Menschen sollen zuerst gegen Vogelgrippe geimpft werden Pandemie würde zu einem fundamentalen ethischen Dilemma führen
"Bethesda (pte/12.05.2006/09:15) - Junge Menschen sollen im Falle einer Pandemie bei Impfungen gegen Vogelgrippe gegenüber Älteren, Kranken und Körperbehinderten bevorzugt werden. Diesen Vorschlag haben Wissenschaftler der National Institutes of Health http://www.nih.gov in einem in Science http://www.sciencemag.org veröffentlichten Bericht gemacht. Die Forscher betonen, dass die Gesellschaft mit wahrscheinlich nur in eingeschränktem Ausmaß zur Verfügung stehenden Impfstoffen gegen Vogelgrippe vor einem fundamentalen ethischen Dilemma steht. Die Studie argumentiert dahingehend, dass junge Menschen ein Recht darauf hätten, alle Stationen des Lebens zu durchlaufen und daher Vorrang haben sollten. (...)"
hier weiterlesen: http://www.pressetext.de/pte.mc?pte=060512012 Pressetext, 12. Mai 2006
Kommentar: Der Viruswahn treibt schon erstaunliche Blüten. Da zerbrechen sich kluge Leute den Kopf darüber, in welche ethischen Konflikte sie geraten könnten, wenn sie darüber entscheiden müssten, wem sie einen völlig nutzlosen Impfstoff gegen eine herbeigeredete Pandemie vorenthalten müssen, wenn nicht genug von diesem Impfstoff da ist...
Treat elderly last in pandemic: Study
"The sick and elderly should be the last to be given a flu vaccine in a pandemic, according to a controversial paper published today in the journal Science.
Healthy teens and young productive adults aged 13 to 40 should get the vaccine ahead of the old and sick, states the commentary, which calls for a radical rethinking of how countries ought to ration the short supply of vaccine in the months after a pandemic breaks out. The proposal runs contrary to American and Canadian vaccine advisory committees and pandemic plans that recommend people 65 and older be given priority due to their increased risk of dying, while healthy children and adults from the ages of 2 to 64 be vaccinated last. (...)"
hier weiterlesen: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147384212150&call_pageid=968332188
492 Toronto Star, Canada, May 12, 2006
Kommentar von Barbara Loe Fisher:
Just about anyone with an M.D. or Ph.D. can call themselves an "ethicist" these days and feel free to appoint themselves judge of who will live and who will die. There is a tendency for public health types employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to believe they are in charge of deciding which groups of individuals within society are expendable for the "greater good." Whether it is maintaining that the casualties of forced vaccination are expendable or, in the case of this pandemic flu "study," that babies and children under 13 and parents and grandparents over 40 are expendable, these elitists wield the ugly utilitarian rationale like a club. Those who believe utiliitarianism has a shred of morality within its philosophy, should read the post World War II transcripts of The Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg. Revealed there, for all the world to see, is why it is dangerous and inherently immoral to use the utilitarian pseudo ethic to support any State policy. Emanuel and Wertheimer's suggestion that babies and children under 13 are expendable and should be denied vaccine in a lethal flu pandemic is forcing a "Sophie's Choice" on parents and grandparents over and under 40. It is a non-starter. However, if an experimental pandemic flu vaccine is as dangerous as the flu it purports to protect against, ironically the policy of denying the very youngest ones the vaccine might end up saving them. In the 1918 influenza pandemic, about one-third of the population became infected and about 10 percent of those infected died. The vaccine benefit risk ratio might well tip in favor of either escaping infection or recovering naturally from the disease rather than deliberately taking a risk with an experimental pandemic flu vaccine. But if a pandemic flu vaccine were really the low risk lifesaver it is meant to be, a more humane prioritizing of scarce vaccine supplies might be to allocate them to those with the greatest chance of dying from the infection. And that would be entirely dependent upon the nature of the particular influenza virus circulating and whether it was especially lethal for certain groups of individuals. The serious business of deciding who gets a lifeboat when the ship is sinking should involve people from all segments of society. The people, not the "experts," should decide.
NVIC-Newsletter vom 16. Mai 2006
Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 23/2006
"Bethesda (pte/12.05.2006/09:15) - Junge Menschen sollen im Falle einer Pandemie bei Impfungen gegen Vogelgrippe gegenüber Älteren, Kranken und Körperbehinderten bevorzugt werden. Diesen Vorschlag haben Wissenschaftler der National Institutes of Health http://www.nih.gov in einem in Science http://www.sciencemag.org veröffentlichten Bericht gemacht. Die Forscher betonen, dass die Gesellschaft mit wahrscheinlich nur in eingeschränktem Ausmaß zur Verfügung stehenden Impfstoffen gegen Vogelgrippe vor einem fundamentalen ethischen Dilemma steht. Die Studie argumentiert dahingehend, dass junge Menschen ein Recht darauf hätten, alle Stationen des Lebens zu durchlaufen und daher Vorrang haben sollten. (...)"
hier weiterlesen: http://www.pressetext.de/pte.mc?pte=060512012 Pressetext, 12. Mai 2006
Kommentar: Der Viruswahn treibt schon erstaunliche Blüten. Da zerbrechen sich kluge Leute den Kopf darüber, in welche ethischen Konflikte sie geraten könnten, wenn sie darüber entscheiden müssten, wem sie einen völlig nutzlosen Impfstoff gegen eine herbeigeredete Pandemie vorenthalten müssen, wenn nicht genug von diesem Impfstoff da ist...
Treat elderly last in pandemic: Study
"The sick and elderly should be the last to be given a flu vaccine in a pandemic, according to a controversial paper published today in the journal Science.
Healthy teens and young productive adults aged 13 to 40 should get the vaccine ahead of the old and sick, states the commentary, which calls for a radical rethinking of how countries ought to ration the short supply of vaccine in the months after a pandemic breaks out. The proposal runs contrary to American and Canadian vaccine advisory committees and pandemic plans that recommend people 65 and older be given priority due to their increased risk of dying, while healthy children and adults from the ages of 2 to 64 be vaccinated last. (...)"
hier weiterlesen: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147384212150&call_pageid=968332188
492 Toronto Star, Canada, May 12, 2006
Kommentar von Barbara Loe Fisher:
Just about anyone with an M.D. or Ph.D. can call themselves an "ethicist" these days and feel free to appoint themselves judge of who will live and who will die. There is a tendency for public health types employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to believe they are in charge of deciding which groups of individuals within society are expendable for the "greater good." Whether it is maintaining that the casualties of forced vaccination are expendable or, in the case of this pandemic flu "study," that babies and children under 13 and parents and grandparents over 40 are expendable, these elitists wield the ugly utilitarian rationale like a club. Those who believe utiliitarianism has a shred of morality within its philosophy, should read the post World War II transcripts of The Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg. Revealed there, for all the world to see, is why it is dangerous and inherently immoral to use the utilitarian pseudo ethic to support any State policy. Emanuel and Wertheimer's suggestion that babies and children under 13 are expendable and should be denied vaccine in a lethal flu pandemic is forcing a "Sophie's Choice" on parents and grandparents over and under 40. It is a non-starter. However, if an experimental pandemic flu vaccine is as dangerous as the flu it purports to protect against, ironically the policy of denying the very youngest ones the vaccine might end up saving them. In the 1918 influenza pandemic, about one-third of the population became infected and about 10 percent of those infected died. The vaccine benefit risk ratio might well tip in favor of either escaping infection or recovering naturally from the disease rather than deliberately taking a risk with an experimental pandemic flu vaccine. But if a pandemic flu vaccine were really the low risk lifesaver it is meant to be, a more humane prioritizing of scarce vaccine supplies might be to allocate them to those with the greatest chance of dying from the infection. And that would be entirely dependent upon the nature of the particular influenza virus circulating and whether it was especially lethal for certain groups of individuals. The serious business of deciding who gets a lifeboat when the ship is sinking should involve people from all segments of society. The people, not the "experts," should decide.
NVIC-Newsletter vom 16. Mai 2006
Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 23/2006
rudkla - 15. Jun, 18:35
