Citizens of Their Own Country

Introduction

There's a term that exists called "vaccine nationalism." It's when countries with the means to produce and buy inoculations for its citizens do so to the extreme, taking national commitment to 100% and global responsibility to 0%. Most people agree that this is not ethical or good; however, there is scientific consensus over just how much a country should prioritize its own citizens.

Stance 1: Complete Opposition

Some people think there should be zero room for vaccine nationalism in public health policy. In an article for Scientific American, Nicole Hassoun states that rich countries should in no way be prioritized, which both the WHO model and the Fair Priority Model do. The only ethical proposal is to treat all people the same, meaning that rich countries should help get vaccines to poorer countries.

Stance 2: A More Moderate Take

Most people, including Ezekiel Emanuel, the lead scientist behind the Fair Priority Model for vaccine allocation, accept that although some national partiality is to be expected, unfettered nationalism is unethical (Emanuel).

Most scientific sources accept as the solution to vaccine nationalism initiatives rooted in "intergovernmental global commitments" facilitated primarily by the World Health Organization (WHO). They argue that since there needs to be a balance between wealthy countries prioritizing their own needs and helping poorer countries, donations and funding to WHO initiatives are the best way to honor global commitments without having to put out any organizational effort on the part of the country (Dykes).

One such "intergovernmental global commitment" is COVAX, a WHO vaccine distribution initiative designed to keep a million vaccine doses for wealthy countries at full price and another million at a discounted price for poor countries (Dykes).

A Note on COVAX and the WHO

Although many wealthy and poor countries have gotten on board with COVAX, the United States, alongside China and Russia, has opted out (Dykes). The United States has also withdrawn funding from the WHO during the COVID pandemic (Hassoun).

Overall, public health experts overwhelmingly agree that is is deeply unethical for the Trump administration to have withdrawn funding from the World Health Organization during the pandemic.

My Take on a Solution

The United States needs to start funding COVAX and the WHO immediately. We are a wealthy country with the resources to contribute to these initiatives, and we should do so. However, there should be room for countries to prioritize their own citizens as well, because that would align with the idea of public trust and buy-in that I've outlined as the underlying current for all ethical decisions.