On the topic of vaccines,
human challenge testing is being considered. This is where people are deliberating given the virus after also been given a vaccine candidate. This is done to speed up trials. Within normal vaccine development, this is
not done for the obvious safety risks, but has been done on occasions, including with corona viruses, with mixed results. On the whole though, challenge testing has been mostly successful in its outcomes. Here is a link to a recent Lancet paper on the topic.
COVID-19 human challenge studies: ethical issuesThat paper discusses all the issues at hand on the topic, which of course, first require the ethical issues to be 'settled' before such a trial can occur.
Such detail about such issues is not everyone's cup of moral tea.Many folks would just say, give her the damn jab and be done with it!
For those further interested in even more fundamental detail, below is some writing that takes it to the raw bones. Not for those who see things in simple black and white.
If you've ever studied medical ethics - of course you have - then you'd be also familiar with the Doctrine of Double Effect, part of course reading in ethics study, especially these days in medical ethics, although it took on its most precise wording when developing Just War theory, back in the middle ages, although its history begins back in Greek Philosophy. The fundamentals of the Doctrine havn't really changed, which goes to demonstrate that certain forms of human reasoning can be quite grounded, if their consistence through time is any testament.
If you havn't ever had the opportunity to read this type of stuff, then you are still probably familiar with it less formally, which also goes to show that it actually has a practical place in our lives, more than some abstract philosophical reasoning. Often referred to as, 'choosing the lesser of the two evils.' Maybe you saw Russel Crowe use the phrase with great humour, in his movie, Master and Commander. The weavel (evil) in the bread scene.
In short, we have a situation where we have two effects, one good, one bad, but the good effect comes with 'evil' strings attached, and of course, we must choose one regardless. For example, war is unwanted for all its killing, but killing (bad) seems one way to finishing the war (good), if you know what I mean (unless you're a pacifistic).
With Covid-19 and
challenge testing, the war is the virus, and the issue is deliberately giving someone the virus (bad, but for a good end). How do we unravel this dilemma? The Doctrine above is outlined as follows. There are four rules of the theory that must be met for it to permissible. I've given my own responses in blue after the said rules. Remember, the question at hand is about giving the virus deliberately, which would normally be considered a bad.
'The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.'1: The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. Pass. Nothing evil in administering a vaccine (unless you're an antivaxxer).
2: The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. Pass. The intention is not to kill the recipient, but if it did occur, it was the result of an unforeseen circumstance.
3:The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. Pass. Not contracting the virus after being exposed to it, demonstrates that the the resultant good effect has followed directly from the 'bad' action (deliberately given the virus).
4: The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect Pass. The consequences from success are very beneficial.
Who will sign up for a little challenge? Carry on.
(20min delay)