Article Text
Abstract
A comprehensive understanding of the ethics of the COVID-19 pandemic priorities must be sensitive to the influence of social inequality. We distinguish between ex-ante and ex-post relevance of social inequality for COVID-19 disadvantage. Ex-ante relevance refers to the distribution of risks of exposure. Ex-post relevance refers to the effect of inequality on how patients respond to infection. In the case of COVID-19, both ex-ante and ex-post effects suggest a distribution which is sensitive to the prevalence social inequality. On this basis, we provide a generic fairness argument for the claim that welfare states ought to favour a healthcare priority scheme that gives particular weight to protecting the socially disadvantaged.
- COVID-19
- ethics
- philosophy
- health care economics and organizations
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usageStatistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Footnotes
Contributors The authors have contributed equally to the article. AA is the guarantor.
Funding This study was funded by Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond (grant number: 9037-00007B); Danmarks Grundforskningsfond (Grant number: DNRF114).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.