Ethical Question: Intentional Infection to Speed Up Vaccine Development?

No way in hell I would sign up for that. The reason is because of the alarming number of doctors who have died from this virus. Why is it that their exposure is more deadly than others? There's no scientific evidence yet that I've seen, but anecdotally it seems as though having more direct contact with the virus, or that there is something to different levels of severity with more direct contact.

Again.... no scientific data I've seen, but I'm not signing up to put Covid 19 DIRECTLY into my system for testing purposes. I would feel much more comfortable taking my chances getting it via community spread vs. direct injection.... IF I was so inclined to open myself up to getting the virus in any way.

 

I read the article as I didn't want to dismiss out of hand. It raises and interesting question but I think this paragraph from the article is a really strong point for not doing this.
"Myron Levine, a vaccine researcher at the University of Maryland School of Medicine who has conducted challenge experiments for more than 40 years, doubts traditional clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine candidates will be as slow as some fear. “I think we’re going to move very, very fast,” he says. Because of the high levels of new infections occurring in many places, conventional trials will reveal a vaccine’s worth on the same timeline as a human challenge. “I cannot imagine that it would be ethical and would really speed up what we have to do.”

I also think that we don't have a good treatment for the symptoms is a very ethical challenge. If say Chloroquine did prove effective it might worth it do these type of challenge trials. As of now we don't know enough to ethically risk someone. At the sametime I don't think this virus is quite so dire as to risk ethical guidelines. If this was something that could truly wipe out much of humanity then yes.

 

I don't think we have to re-invent medical ethics to address the coronavirus. If we can get a consensus that there is an ethically sound way to do it in our normal ethical framework, then fine. But we're not helping ourselves if we panic and start doing unplanned things. My guess is that we don't know enough about this virus to ethically inject it into someone.

 

What's the difference between volunteering for this and volunteering to join a war? Either way, you are putting yourself at increased risk of death. What makes one ethical, and the other not?

 

Doctors have a hippocratic oath, and generals do not? I don't think there is an ethical dilemma for the volunteer; it's his life to gamble. But, for a doctor to be complicit in your death is a different matter. Likewise for the general, but they seem to have resolved that problem differently.

 

Usually it is the scientists who will volunteer for their own stuff.

If they need someone else to do it and to make it worse by putting out $1M bonus......Nobody should do it.

 

$1 million is ridiculously more than would be required.

Here is a story from just a few months ago about people getting paid $3300 to get infected with H1N1 flu by the CDC. 20x as lethal? Pay out 20x as much. $66,000 and cover any costs like hospitalization for complications that arise from it, and you'd have more volunteers than you'd know what to do with. That is 2x as much as some people make in a year. $1 million is way more than it would take. All of those college bros throwing Covid 19 parties would be lining up to take your money.

Honestly, $66000 is probably vastly more than it would take to get your pick of gunea pigs, to be honest.

 

Some excellent posts here. There are some very strong reasons for medical ethics. Doctors already have to make tough calls we don't want to give them more reasons to gamble with people's lives.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/...ted-drivers-to-deliberately-catch-coronavirus