Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:40:06.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An ethical and prudential argument for prioritizing the reduction of parasite-stress in the allocation of health care resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2012

Russell Powell
Affiliation:
Science and Religious Conflict Project, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Institute for Science and Ethics, Oxford Martin School and Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1-1PT, United Kingdom. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/staffhttp://www.src.ox.ac.uk/staff.htm
Steve Clarke
Affiliation:
Science and Religious Conflict Project, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Institute for Science and Ethics, Oxford Martin School and Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1-1PT, United Kingdom. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/staffhttp://www.src.ox.ac.uk/staff.htm
Julian Savulescu
Affiliation:
Science and Religious Conflict Project, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Institute for Science and Ethics, Oxford Martin School and Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1-1PT, United Kingdom. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/staffhttp://www.src.ox.ac.uk/staff.htm

Abstract

The link between parasite-stress and complex psychological dispositions implies that the social, political, and economic benefits likely to flow from public health interventions that reduce rates of non-zoonotic infectious disease are far greater than have traditionally been thought. We sketch a prudential and ethical argument for increasing public health resources globally and redistributing these to focus on the alleviation of parasite-stress in human populations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, D. E. & Canning, D. (2000) The health and wealth of nations. Science 287(5456):1207–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, D. E., Canning, D. & Weston, M. (2005) The value of vaccination. World Economics 6(3):1539.Google Scholar
Bykvist, K. (2010) Utilitarianism: A guide for the perplexed. Continuum.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D. (2006) Moral minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. & Willis, H. (2002) Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology 53:575604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hotez, P. J., Bundy, D. A. P., Beegle, K., Brooker, S., Drake, L., Silva, N. de, Montresor, A., Engels, D., Jukes, M., Chitsulo, L., Chow, J., Laxminarayan, R., Michaud, C. M., Bethony, J., Correa-Oliveira, R., Xiao, S. H., Fernwick, A. & Savioli, L. (2006) Helminth infections: Soil-transmitted helminth infections and schistosomiasis. In: Disease control priorities in developing countries, 2nd edition, ed. Jamison, D. T., Breman, J. G., Measham, A. R., Alleyne, G., Claeson, M., Evans, D. B., Jha, P., Mills, A. & Musgrove, P., pp. 466–82. World Bank.Google Scholar
Lee, B. Y., Bacon, K. M., Bailey, R., Wiringa, A. E. & Smith, K. J. (2011) The potential economic value of a hookworm vaccine. Vaccine 29(6):1201–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navarrete, C. D. & Fessler, D. M. T. (2006) Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: The effects of disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and Human Behavior 27:270–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P. (1981) The expanding circle. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar