Piers's Podcast

This second episode of this two-part Covid ethics series focuses on how we can translate what we have learned so far to the future. As before, the focus is on the *ethical* frameworks for future policies, but this time with an emphasis on vaccination. Is there a right to refuse to be vaccinated, and is there a convincing analogy with the generally accepted right to refuse treatment - even for life-threatening medical conditions? Is there a duty to prioritise those in the greatest need for the vaccine, regardless of national boundaries? How does a reasonable notion of justice apply to these questions? Aristotle said we should treat equals equally and unequals unequally. But does equality of need do the necessary work? In the UK, why are the elderly given priority for the vaccine, but not for health care in general? More generally, what are the best ways to deal with the often angry disagreements about policy that first emerged during the early stages of the pandemic? How can we cultivate 'ethical preparedness' for the next pandemic or similar crisis?With me to discuss these questions, as before, are three distinguished guests:Raanan Gillon, Emeritus Professor of Medical Ethics at Imperial College London, former GP, former editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics and President of the British Medical Association, 2019-20.David Archard, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Queens University Belfast and Chair of the Nuffield Council on  Bioethics.Timandra Harkness, writer and broadcaster, presenter of the recent BBC Radio 4 series 'How to Disagree' and 'Steel-manning', and data expert.Anyone puzzled or frustrated by the public discussion and/or the policies we have lived with should listen eagerly to this discussion - it will be worth your 40 minutes! Be assured, the spirit is Socratic, not polemical.I would like to thank the Nuffield Council on Bioethics for its assistance with this project. The views expressed by contributors do not necessarily represent the views of the Council.Dr Piers Benn, philosopher, producer and host. 

It is two years since Prime Minister Boris Johnson told us all: 'You Must Stay at Home'. This meant a sudden and radical readjustment of our lives - we were not allowed to see our friends and family, most of had to stay at home except for specific reasons, and daily government briefings informed us of the death toll from Covid-19. We were bombarded with scenario forecasts. The government told us it was 'following the science'. But what was, and what should have been, the ethical basis for a good response to the pandemic? Did the government have a clear ethical framework? Was it transparent about whom it was consulting, what it was doing, and why? Heated rows about what we should be doing often dominated the airwaves and social media. Many people thought the lock down came far too late. Others thought it should not have happened at all. But how could the different views be brought into proper contact with each other? What ethical basis could we start from, so that rational and coherent policies could be formed? More specifically, could 'the science' dictate what we or the government ought to do? How, for example, should we balance personal liberty with public health concerns?I thought different advocates were often talking past each other and that an agreed ethical framework, or at least agreed ways to reach one, might have helped. But it seemed to be lacking. So I thought it would be a good idea to get some distinguished thinkers together to do  a podcast in two episodes. This episode - the first - would be a retrospective on the early days: what went well, what didn't go well, and on what ethical basis could things have been done better, given that we did not know when we would have a vaccine? The second episode would be more forward looking, discussing remaining ethical issues such as mandatory vaccination.This podcast tries to strip away arguments about specific policies, to get at the ethical heart of the matter. In this first episode, I discuss these questions with three guests:Raanan Gillon, Emeritus Professor of Medical Ethics at Imperial College London, former GP, former editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics and President of the British Medical Association, 2019-20.David Archard, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Queens University Belfast and Chair of the Nuffield Council on  Bioethics.Timandra Harkness, writer and broadcaster, presenter of the recent BBC Radio 4 series 'How to Disagree' and 'Steel-manning', and data expert.Anyone puzzled or frustrated by the public discussion and/or the policies we have lived with should listen eagerly to this discussion - it will be worth your 45 minutes! Be assured, the spirit is Socratic, not polemical.I would like to thank the Nuffield Council on Bioethics for its assistance with this project. The views expressed by contributors do not necessarily represent the views of the Council.Dr Piers Benn, philosopher, producer and host.