7 ms·

> They're literally saying he should have just thrown them away instead of distributing them as best he was able. I wouldn't necessarily object to that particu

> They're literally saying he should have just thrown them away instead of distributing them as best he was able. I wouldn't necessarily object to that particular policy. It's a shame to waste perfectly good medicine in a pandemic, but would we feel the same if he had not found anybody vulnerable who was available, and instead ended up vaccinating his own children, who are fit and healthy? What if, instead, he taken the vaccine vial to Beverly Hills and called up the rich and famous to try and find someone who wanted to be vaccinated? I think the prosecution in this case is wrong; and the authorities should have prepared well in advance to make use of spare vaccines in a fair way. But the motivation for the prosecution is understandable - a distribution policy exists to protect the equity of society, and bureaucracy is meant to be a guarantee of that equity.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> It's a shame to waste perfectly good medicine in a pandemic, but would we feel the same if he had not found anybody vulnerable who was available, and instead ended up vaccinating his own children, who are fit and healthy? What if, instead, he taken the vaccine vial to Beverly Hills and called up the rich and famous to try and find someone who wanted to be vaccinated? If he can get from Texas to Beverly Hills in six hours, I'm fine with it. Every shot in an arm is a step closer to ending this thing. I'd rather it get couriered to Bill Gates than dropped in a trash can.
valarauko 6y ago
> It's a shame to waste perfectly good medicine in a pandemic, but would we feel the same if he had not found anybody vulnerable who was available, and instead ended up vaccinating his own children, who are fit and healthy? If he'd made an honest attempt at offering it to vulnerable people first and couldn't find any takers, then I'd be fine with him giving it to his healthy children. > What if, instead, he taken the vaccine vial to Beverly Hills and called up the rich and famous to try and find someone who wanted to be vaccinated? That's worse, but I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did - offered it to first responders, healthcare workers, and finally the most vulnerable people he could find, all on his own time, money, and effort. > * But the motivation for the prosecution is understandable - a distribution policy exists to protect the equity of society, and bureaucracy is meant to be a guarantee of that equity. * Unfortunately, "equity" is a nebulous term here. The bureaucracy took one look at the list of names, saw a bunch of brown South Asian names and assumed this was unfair - why? Was their net worth written next to them? Could they have taken this step with a latino doctor and all the names were latino names - or with a black doctor? > a distribution policy exists to protect the equity of society Not really - the policy was exists in most places heavily favors the most vulnerable, not equitable racial distribution. There is some overlap between those two groups, for sure.
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  >I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did They're not comparisons. They are hypotheticals, intended to explore the range of possibilities that people would allow or oppose. If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. >Not really - the policy was exists in most places heavily favors the most vulnerable, not equitable racial distribution. I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness".
  - valarauko 6y ago
    > If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. I agree that we must consider counterfactuals, but we can still only judge him by his actions, not hypothetical scenarios. Considering counterfactuals should help guide policy, not punishment. > I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness". So how do we determine a particular list of recipients was "equitable" or not? While I agree with the idea that equity should mean fairness, I would offer that unfortunately in America that notion begins and ends with "equitable racial distribution".
fortran77 6y ago
Listen -- we all need to get vaccinated in the next few months. The order in which it happens makes little difference.
aardvarkr 6y ago
So your problem is that it’s not fair how he distributed it? You’d rather see life saving medicine trashed rather than go into a human being’s arm? How can you defend that position? It’s so unethical.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  You can't separate this from the decision to open a new vial when there was only one person in line.
  - btilly 6y ago
    According to the story that decision was made, per procedure, by a nurse. He didn't create the situation. He just tried to do the best that he could given the situation that he was in.
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  >So your problem is that it’s not fair how he distributed it? No, the point I'm making is that his actions were outside of the system we use as a society to ensure fairness. He could still have distributed the vaccine fairly - but he also could have done it unfairly. The concern comes from the lack of due process. >You’d rather see life saving medicine trashed rather than go into a human being’s arm? How can you defend that position? This is a strawman, so thankfully I don't have to defend it. Ultimately, the point is more this one: if you view this with a utilitarian mindset, then you may feel that the ends justified the doctor's means. But the rule of law is deontological, not utilitarian - both because it simplifies decision-making in the justice system, and because it protects people from utilitarian injustice. And from that perspective, the doctor acted unjustly in bypassing policy, even if the outcome was good - and that's what the prosecutor is concerned with.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    > in bypassing policy Citation needed please, the article said that he followed the policy of not letting the vaccine go to waste.
Igelau 6y ago
The thing is, a vaccine isn't exactly a good that people want, try to get, then they have it and someone else doesn't. It's not a Furby. Every single person in the population who gets it is benefitting the others who haven't gotten it. Why would you waste it when you know giving it to literally anyone will benefit everyone?
ajford 6y ago
He did attempt to find the people who should have received it. He just wasn't able to find enough on a tight timeline. Honestly? As long as he made a good faith effort to distribute the doses he had available, then hell yeah I endorse him vaccinating any warm body available to him, whether it's his family or not. Now if he took money in exchange? That should be a criminal offense and he should loose his medical license. But if he walked into a grocery store with an hour left and a rich person just happened to get the shot, so be it, as long as no favor was exchanged. In my opinion this whole mess is, at least in part, a fault of those above him. There should be a standby list with a clear expectancy of urgency. If you get a call at 2am, you either show up or get passed by. Fill it with all the front-line workers in the county or something like that first, then start pulling in the public. There should be _no_ shortage of people willing to take this, we're just spending so much time worrying about who gets it and not enough time worrying about ensuring that every last dose is effectively used and not wasted. The current distribution policy does not exist for the equity of society, it puts the most at-risk first. That makes sense, but it shouldn't be the point at which we draw the line. For herd immunity to take effect, 70%+ of the population must be resistant, so a few people getting the vaccine out of order shouldn't cause this much of an outrage when done without malice.
- theluketaylor 6y ago
  > As long as he made a good faith effort to distribute the doses he had available, then hell yeah I endorse him vaccinating any warm body available to him, whether it's his family or not I agree, but I think if I were in the position of having an extra dose that needed a warm body I'd try to find someone outside my family to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
  - ajford 6y ago
    Oh, I agree. But if it comes down to dropping it in the trash or giving it to his family? In that case, I vote administering the vaccine. At no point should this vaccine be wasted, people have literally given their lives to save others during this pandemic. Throwing away doses because it looks improper is an insult and a disservice to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of others. It's not a popular opinion, but I think anyone who's administering the vaccine should have their immediate family added to the standby list anyways, if not placed in the current phase. Eliminate the temptation for these people to want to go outside the normal channels to protect your family, and you eliminate the risk of impropriety. That's not to say it shouldn't be rationed and planned so the high-risk populous suffers though. It's ultimately a contentious line we have to walk, since supply is limited and demand is high, though not as geospatially dense as we'd like in all cases. It makes efficient delivery to those in rural or less well served areas much harder, which brings about intended and unintended inequalities to the front.
mcv 6y ago
If he could not find any suitable recipients in time, yes, he should have vaccinated his own children. Still better than throwing it away. Selling it for profit would be something totally different and should absolutely be treated as theft. But vaccinating anyone, even his own family, is better than throwing it away. Of course to prove he's not abusing his position to benefit his family, it's probably wise to document his efforts to find other suitable people. But if he can't, just use it on anyone. That's what the guideline says, after all.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> It's a shame to waste perfectly good medicine in a pandemic, but would we feel the same if he had not found anybody vulnerable who was available, and instead ended up vaccinating his own children, who are fit and healthy? What if, instead, he taken the vaccine vial to Beverly Hills and called up the rich and famous to try and find someone who wanted to be vaccinated? If he can get from Texas to Beverly Hills in six hours, I'm fine with it. Every shot in an arm is a step closer to ending this thing. I'd rather it get couriered to Bill Gates than dropped in a trash can.

valarauko 6y ago

> It's a shame to waste perfectly good medicine in a pandemic, but would we feel the same if he had not found anybody vulnerable who was available, and instead ended up vaccinating his own children, who are fit and healthy? If he'd made an honest attempt at offering it to vulnerable people first and couldn't find any takers, then I'd be fine with him giving it to his healthy children. > What if, instead, he taken the vaccine vial to Beverly Hills and called up the rich and famous to try and find someone who wanted to be vaccinated? That's worse, but I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did - offered it to first responders, healthcare workers, and finally the most vulnerable people he could find, all on his own time, money, and effort. > * But the motivation for the prosecution is understandable - a distribution policy exists to protect the equity of society, and bureaucracy is meant to be a guarantee of that equity. * Unfortunately, "equity" is a nebulous term here. The bureaucracy took one look at the list of names, saw a bunch of brown South Asian names and assumed this was unfair - why? Was their net worth written next to them? Could they have taken this step with a latino doctor and all the names were latino names - or with a black doctor? > a distribution policy exists to protect the equity of society Not really - the policy was exists in most places heavily favors the most vulnerable, not equitable racial distribution. There is some overlap between those two groups, for sure.

ivanbakel 6y ago
>I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did They're not comparisons. They are hypotheticals, intended to explore the range of possibilities that people would allow or oppose. If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. >Not really - the policy was exists in most places heavily favors the most vulnerable, not equitable racial distribution. I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness".
- valarauko 6y ago
  > If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. I agree that we must consider counterfactuals, but we can still only judge him by his actions, not hypothetical scenarios. Considering counterfactuals should help guide policy, not punishment. > I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness". So how do we determine a particular list of recipients was "equitable" or not? While I agree with the idea that equity should mean fairness, I would offer that unfortunately in America that notion begins and ends with "equitable racial distribution".

fortran77 6y ago

Listen -- we all need to get vaccinated in the next few months. The order in which it happens makes little difference.

aardvarkr 6y ago

So your problem is that it’s not fair how he distributed it? You’d rather see life saving medicine trashed rather than go into a human being’s arm? How can you defend that position? It’s so unethical.

Grustaf 6y ago
You can't separate this from the decision to open a new vial when there was only one person in line.
- btilly 6y ago
  According to the story that decision was made, per procedure, by a nurse. He didn't create the situation. He just tried to do the best that he could given the situation that he was in.
ivanbakel 6y ago
>So your problem is that it’s not fair how he distributed it? No, the point I'm making is that his actions were outside of the system we use as a society to ensure fairness. He could still have distributed the vaccine fairly - but he also could have done it unfairly. The concern comes from the lack of due process. >You’d rather see life saving medicine trashed rather than go into a human being’s arm? How can you defend that position? This is a strawman, so thankfully I don't have to defend it. Ultimately, the point is more this one: if you view this with a utilitarian mindset, then you may feel that the ends justified the doctor's means. But the rule of law is deontological, not utilitarian - both because it simplifies decision-making in the justice system, and because it protects people from utilitarian injustice. And from that perspective, the doctor acted unjustly in bypassing policy, even if the outcome was good - and that's what the prosecutor is concerned with.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  > in bypassing policy Citation needed please, the article said that he followed the policy of not letting the vaccine go to waste.

Igelau 6y ago

The thing is, a vaccine isn't exactly a good that people want, try to get, then they have it and someone else doesn't. It's not a Furby. Every single person in the population who gets it is benefitting the others who haven't gotten it. Why would you waste it when you know giving it to literally anyone will benefit everyone?

ajford 6y ago

He did attempt to find the people who should have received it. He just wasn't able to find enough on a tight timeline. Honestly? As long as he made a good faith effort to distribute the doses he had available, then hell yeah I endorse him vaccinating any warm body available to him, whether it's his family or not. Now if he took money in exchange? That should be a criminal offense and he should loose his medical license. But if he walked into a grocery store with an hour left and a rich person just happened to get the shot, so be it, as long as no favor was exchanged. In my opinion this whole mess is, at least in part, a fault of those above him. There should be a standby list with a clear expectancy of urgency. If you get a call at 2am, you either show up or get passed by. Fill it with all the front-line workers in the county or something like that first, then start pulling in the public. There should be _no_ shortage of people willing to take this, we're just spending so much time worrying about who gets it and not enough time worrying about ensuring that every last dose is effectively used and not wasted. The current distribution policy does not exist for the equity of society, it puts the most at-risk first. That makes sense, but it shouldn't be the point at which we draw the line. For herd immunity to take effect, 70%+ of the population must be resistant, so a few people getting the vaccine out of order shouldn't cause this much of an outrage when done without malice.

theluketaylor 6y ago
> As long as he made a good faith effort to distribute the doses he had available, then hell yeah I endorse him vaccinating any warm body available to him, whether it's his family or not I agree, but I think if I were in the position of having an extra dose that needed a warm body I'd try to find someone outside my family to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
- ajford 6y ago
  Oh, I agree. But if it comes down to dropping it in the trash or giving it to his family? In that case, I vote administering the vaccine. At no point should this vaccine be wasted, people have literally given their lives to save others during this pandemic. Throwing away doses because it looks improper is an insult and a disservice to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of others. It's not a popular opinion, but I think anyone who's administering the vaccine should have their immediate family added to the standby list anyways, if not placed in the current phase. Eliminate the temptation for these people to want to go outside the normal channels to protect your family, and you eliminate the risk of impropriety. That's not to say it shouldn't be rationed and planned so the high-risk populous suffers though. It's ultimately a contentious line we have to walk, since supply is limited and demand is high, though not as geospatially dense as we'd like in all cases. It makes efficient delivery to those in rural or less well served areas much harder, which brings about intended and unintended inequalities to the front.

mcv 6y ago

If he could not find any suitable recipients in time, yes, he should have vaccinated his own children. Still better than throwing it away. Selling it for profit would be something totally different and should absolutely be treated as theft. But vaccinating anyone, even his own family, is better than throwing it away. Of course to prove he's not abusing his position to benefit his family, it's probably wise to document his efforts to find other suitable people. But if he can't, just use it on anyone. That's what the guideline says, after all.