Vaccine nationalism refers to countries that are economically developed and which order many vaccine doses from big pharmaceutical companies even before the vaccines are approved for use. Utilitarianism in health dictates that interventions are appropriate only if they improve most people’s health outcomes (Ransom & Olsson, 2017). Therefore, vaccine nationalization is inappropriate because it only avails the vaccines to few wealthy countries which can afford it, leaving the other developing states, making a majority of the world population, without vaccine supply.
Health is both a positive right and a negative right in the context of the availability of vaccines for all. Therefore, developed countries should refrain from pre-ordering large numbers of doses to the extent of the developing countries missing out on immunization. In the same vein, high-income countries should financially support global initiatives for equitable distribution of vaccines among all states in the world, especially in times of a pandemic (Ransom & Olsson, 2017). A global program for the distribution of vaccines will promote the right to equal opportunity of obtaining healthcare.
The cost-benefit analysis of avoiding vaccine nationalism in a global pandemic is that the agent causing disease is eradicated simultaneously from all corners of the world. This prevents the agent from mutating and becoming resistant to the vaccines, as would happen if only a few countries got the privilege of immunizing their citizens (Ransom & Olsson, 2017). Resistance increases costs by necessitating further research requiring heavy funding to come up with novel vaccines against the mutated strains of the agent. In conclusion, vaccine distribution should be egalitarian, especially during a pandemic that has worsened the situation with the world’s economy. Hence, vaccines should be distributed with equity and fairness for the achievement of maximum health benefits.
Reference
Ransom, H., & Olsson, J. M. (2017). Allocation of health care resources: Principles for decision-making. Pediatrics in Review, 38(7), 320-329. Web.