An interesting moral dilemma that struck me today after reading the news that the UK Government plans (unsurprisingly) to distribute our 18 million H1N1 vaccine jabs to the elderly and at risk groups.

The question that arises is this: is it the right choice? and why?

The Wrong Choice

The argument is very simple. It seems compassionate to protect the elderly and weak from this disease: but it's slowly becoming clear that you can be healthy - or have complications not currently considered "risky" in the context of the virus - and still be relived of this mortal coil.

With that in mind is it not time to make an objective and possibly amoral choice to protect the healthy, strong, workforce. If that group are killed off in the (admittedly unlikely) event swine flu truly becomes a killer pandemic then are we not screwed any way? And if the youngest generations die then it becomes an even bigger problem.

Where does the bigger risk lie?

Statistics Time

There are some interesting statistics to back up this view point. Firstly the idea of cytokine storms which are, apparently, being seen causing death in otherwise healthy flu victims. Then we have the CDC statistics which show under 25's are particularly at risk.

Obviously I consider these reports with some degree of care; but I think the evidence is growing to support the idea that it is not just the weakened immune systems that are at risk here.

But it's right, Really

After thinking about this if asked right now to make a choice I would (currently) still choose the weak and elderly. There are, as I see it, 2 reasons for this.

The first is our society is very compassionate towards at-risk people (a fact I am very proud of). This is perhaps a mark of how far civilisation has come since we lived in caves (and even, in fact, in cities) - that we strive to keep even the weakest alive at any cost. Even now the cost is not too high. Perhaps there is a level of cynicism here too: the politician that condemns millions to death is not going to be popular once all danger has passed (regardless of outcome). Because that is, ultimately, the choice: sacrificing those with weak immune systems to maintain the healthy.

The second is because at heart I  (and also those in charge of the jabs) are gamblers. The gamble is that the flu wont get that bad, that stopping it dead in the weakest of the population (where logically it should spread more virulently) will help reign it in and the healthy workforce will be safe. Whether this gamble is based on really carefully considered evidence, heresy or just gut feeling I couldn't say: but it's certainly feels like the "right", moral, choice.

Whilst there is undeniable logic in this argument I dont think there are many that would really make a different choice. Or perhaps I am wrong? Discuss. :)