Immunity passports would be an excellent measure that allows individuals who are immune to the virus to break the set lockdown protocols. This would be an important step in the prevention of the spread of the virus while still boosting the economy of a country. Essential services would still be available to the public even at the height of the pandemic making it even easier to handle the crisis. While some Americans view the passport system as discriminative and underprepared, I believe that if the system is properly implemented it could help both those with and without the immunity in the end.
A working immunity passport would be effective and beneficial to everyone. According to Bramble, the passport would be a big help especially in situations where essential workers susceptible to the virus could be ‘subbed out’ (47). Helping to put some people out of danger while still delivering the needed services. The passports could also help stimulate the economy, as not all workers would be under lockdown meaning that some companies would continue production or service delivery. This would also serve to help the people themselves since lockdown restrictions are not that pleasant and are expensive as well.
Expected consequences from the immunity passport system, when implemented well could be in a position to offer a lot of help in reducing the spread of the virus while aiding the population all together making it morally acceptable. According to the utilitarianism theory, utilitarianism distinguishes between the higher and lower pleasures and evaluation of the consequences as the frame of reference to make moral decisions. This theory greatly adheres to my moral position that the expected consequences of immunity passports do make it a morally acceptable position.
First major worry about the immunity passport system is the testing ability at present. According to major sources, the current testing is not very accurate (Bramble 48). This poses the risk of releasing infected people hence spreading the virus even more. This however, should not be a reason to reject the immunity system. Testing of populations would become highly accurate and widely available given time. This agrees with the utilitarianism theory since the consequences of the action would be good and form a good argument for making the moral decision of whether or not to implement immunity passports.
The feasibility of the testing is another problem to the immunity passport system. According to Bramble, a country would require tens to hundreds of millions of serological tests for the implementation of a national immunity certification program (Bramble 48). This would pose a great challenge to the system since current testing is not enough for the population. However, this should not be an issue, as only those required in essential services require the testing.
Deliberate exposure to the virus by some individuals would cause challenges to the system implementation as well. Some people may try to get the infection on purpose in order to recover, gain immunity and get permission to leave the lockdown. This is problematic since they may become severely ill, die or infect more people in the process (Bramble 50). Still, this would not be such a challenge as the governments could simply educate their masses to make better choices. The immunity passports would be available to those individuals who provide essential services. Consequently, despite the challenge, the result would be for the greater good and thus providing a basis to agree with the utilitarianism theory.
Immunity passports could also give rise to unfair discrimination of individuals with no passports especially in workplaces, or in other practices. Allowing only people with immunity passports to work would disadvantage those who do not have them, hence fostering inequalities. The inequalities that the passport could foster are illegal according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (Bramble 51). This may seem unfair at first but would be for the greater good as it would mean less people are at risk of infection. The consequence of the system, which is good, justifies the means thus implying the action is morally acceptable.
Another concern is that the passport system would be a source of international harms and disagreements. There would be divisions between nations that are unable or unwilling to implement immunity passport programs and those that implement them. For instance, citizens from a country with no immunity programme would be subject to restrictions of entry to a country with the program (Bramble 53). However, this should not warrant discrimination. The wealthy countries ought to use their resources to aid the poorer countries to cope and recover from the deadly COVID-19 virus more effectively to improve cohesion among them. This in return would help toward the return to normalcy of the whole population. In this case, the consequence would be a basis for making moral decisions, which favor both the wealthy and poor countries, thus agreeing with the utilitarianism theory.
Immunity passport, just like any system has its own fair share of challenges and misconception. However, as looked at, the idea would be great if well implemented. The consequences from the implemented system would be good and beneficial thus justifying it to be morally right in accordance with the utilitarianism theory.
Work Cited
Ben, Bramble. Pandemic Ethics: Immunity Passport. Bartleby Books, 2020.