NYT: U.S. Creates Ethics Panel on Priority for Flu Shots (heartbreaking!)

[DeepModem Mom]

U.S. Creates Ethics Panel on Priority for Flu Shots
By GARDINER HARRIS

Published: October 28, 2004


For the first time in its history, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has created a permanent panel of ethicists on vaccine distribution, to help navigate the life-and-death questions of who should get flu vaccines in the current crisis and how the agency should cope with any future epidemics....

***

The panel began deliberating Monday. One member, John D. Arras, a professor of bioethics at the University of Virginia, said the group might eventually tackle the question of whether babies should have priority over the elderly in receiving the flu vaccine, or vice versa. Another question the panel might have to decide is whether, in the event of a pandemic, members of crucial professions - perhaps even undertakers - should receive priority....

***

The disease control agency has already decided that broadly speaking, only the very young, the very old and the chronically ill should receive this season's limited supply of flu vaccine. But state and local health officials have complained that shortages of the vaccine are so dire that they do not have enough to inoculate everyone in those categories. While they have been making decisions themselves about who should receive priority, these officials say they want better guidance from the agency as to who is the highest of the high-risk....

***

Public health officers in North Dakota were able to agree that chronically ill patients in the state's nursing homes should be vaccinated first. The decision was reached for medical and practical reasons, said Larry Shireley, the state epidemiologist: such people not only are at great risk of contracting the disease, Mr. Shireley said, but also are easy to reach.

But state health officers could not agree, he said, on whether babies or the healthy elderly should be next on the list.

Babies are more susceptible to the disease, but the elderly are more likely to die of it. On the other hand, most babies, unlike most of the very old, have decades of life ahead.

A standard ethical argument is that "people are supposed to get a certain number of fair innings in a lifetime," Dr. Arras said.

"That would incline you to treat the young rather than the old,'' he said, "since the old have already had their innings."

But since the old are more likely to die of the disease, another way to decide the issue is to determine the number of years that would be saved by inoculating them first rather than the young.

The committee will examine all those issues, Dr. Arras said....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/health/28vaccine.html

[Peanut Gallery]

1. This isn't happening in Canada

Great Britain, etc. Why is it happening here?

We had a shortage last year too. You'd think better planning would have been in place after that. I hope Illinois governor Rod B. is successful in his bid to purchase additional vaccine. If the FDA approves his plan and if he can find enough of a supply he is going to partner with other states.

Gov seeks federal OK to buy flu vaccine from Europe
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-flu25.html

(snip)

The state learned of the potential to buy the flu vaccines from the governor's staffers who work on and helped develop the I-Save-Rx program, Scott McKibbin and Ram Kamath. The state employees were in Great Britain to deal with suppliers and pharmacies doing business with I-Save-Rx.

Well aware of the flu vaccine shortage, they scouted around and found the medicine available for purchase. Blagojevich said the vaccines could be "shipped within hours of approval by the FDA.''

[JaySherman]

6. Yet "socialized" medicine doesn't work right?

Bullsh*t it doesn't.

[Iceburg]

16. USA is the only country experiencing this problem

There is no money in it for the drug companies so why make it a priority. All other countries the gov takes responsibility for the health and welfare of their citizens ... in the USA it is left to the drug companies to decide.

[DELUSIONAL]

17. in States bordering Canada -- people can go north for flu shots

and in fact in Washington people who are concerned and can get to Canada are going for shots -- according to a recent article in the P.I. (posted here on DU).

Canada has plenty of flu vaccine -- enough for all Canadians and enough for neighbors who COME to Canada.

As far as I know there have been no reports about ill effects from this non US "approved" vaccine. Since there are so many guinea pigs who have tested the Canadian vaccine -- it should be allowed to be shipped to any state that requests a Canadian supply.

I wonder how many people who needs flu shots (or feel they need the shots) and can't get a shot -- are STILL voting for the chimpster?

[area51]

2. U.S. healthcare

This points out once again what a failure the U.S. healthcare system is. It's long past time to try some sort of single-payer/universal healthcare! To my knowledge, we're the only country w/a flu vaccine shortage.

[Tanuki]

3. Chilling

There is something about this that feels sinister beyond the current flu situation. Are we on the verge of rationing health care in general, curtailing Medicare on the grounds that the elderly have already had "their fair number of innings"? Nothing would surprise me in a second Bush administration.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Welcome to DU, Tanuki -- and I agree...

I found this article pretty disturbing.

[Bandit]

18. You mean like a "Big Guvment takeover"

What a dick this Bush* fella is. He says the opposite of what he does.

[booksenkatz]

5. Priorities, priorities, priorities

It all comes down to what we value in our society. Our government has decided that it's more important to invest in Viagra and happy pills rather than to subsidize flu vaccines. Our government thinks that our health should be something for the "pharmers' market."

I don't know about you, but I think it's time to change our government.

[MrPrax]

7. Eerie...back to the future

When I think of medical ethics panels being convened to discuss 'priorities', I think about the 40s and 50s era and the 'black panels' in many hospitals.

When kidney dialysis machines were first introduced, there was an acute shortage as they were very expensive. So hospitals had anonymous committees who met in secret and decided who got the treatment and who didn't...

The criteria they used to priorize people was generally, white married males first, white married women, white single men, then white single women, then 'anyone else left'. Income, age and how many children they had also was used for priorizing 'who got the lifesaving treatment'...

Like yesterday and as Cheney said, 'no profit in flu shots'. It would be nice if the 'right to life' phonies kicked this stuff around once in awhile...

[DeepModem Mom]

8. I had no idea of this with early dialysis machines --

[Oak2004]

15. As true today, in its own way, with medical "ethicists"

There's never been any sort of public debate and public consensus about what constitutes medical ethics. Medical "ethicists" today are essentially self-appointed judges and juries over who lives and who dies.

They decide whose lives are "important", which means their decisions are almost invariably that rich white men are the first to be served. Then if there's anything left, the working people who serve rich white folks get a few crumbs. The rest of us (such as myself, a middle aged gay (no family = useless life) disabled (not rich, not working = unworthy of life) person) are left to die.

If any medical "ethicist" ever decides I ought to die, It's my intention to take the little Eichmann wannabe with me when I go.

[Child_Of_Isis]

9. I think we should go by income.

We can do it like we do the tax breaks. The top 1% get theirs first of course. And all of congress and that sort. IF anything is left, how about a lottery for the upper middle class..top upper only! This is our future folks!

[DeepModem Mom]

10. Yep, four more years, and this would probably be the plan --

[hunter]

11. Well yes, it's good for the economy!

The flu quickly kills old people who don't have any money. It's a good way for our government to reduce Medicare and Social Security spending.

(Deep dark dripping sarcasm of course...)

[The Zug]

12. This is called "RATIONING"

. . . and we can't have that, can we?

[donsu]

13. this is nazi/racist thinking

this is disgusting!

[CBHagman]

14. This is the state we're in...

...and Bush is going around trying to scare people away from Kerry's health care proposals? Given that this crisis happened on Bush's watch and people are losing their health insurance, not signing up in droves, we'd better get into a 12-step program and stop voting dysfunctionally.

Then again, more than half of us didn't vote dysfunctionally in 2000. If the Supreme Court weren't so ethically challenged, we might not be in this disastrous situation today.