Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Distributive justice and the harm to medical professionals fighting epidemics
  1. Andreas Albertsen1,
  2. Jens Damgaard Thaysen2
  1. 1 Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  2. 2 Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Andreas Albertsen, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark; aba{at}


The exposure of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals to risks in the context of epidemics is significant. While traditional medical ethics offers the thought that these dangers may limit the extent to which a duty to care is applicable in such situations, it has less to say about what we might owe to medical professionals who are disadvantaged in these contexts. Luck egalitarianism, a responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice, appears to fare particularly badly in that regard. If we want to maintain that medical professionals are responsible for their decisions to help, cure and care for the vulnerable, luck egalitarianism seems to imply that their claim of justice to medical attention in case of infection is weak or non-existent. The article demonstrates how a recent interpretation of luck egalitarianism offers a solution to this problem. Redefining luck egalitarianism as concerned with responsibility for creating disadvantages, rather than for incurring disadvantage as such, makes it possible to maintain that medical professionals are responsible for their choices and that those infected because of their choice to help fight epidemics have a full claim of justice to medical attention.

  • Ethics
  • Allocation of Health Care Resources
  • Political Philosophy

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors Both authors have contributed, in equal proportion, to the drafting, writing and development of this article.

  • Funding Carlsberg Foundation CF14-0896.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.