VACCINES AND EQUITY VS. VACCINES AND EQUALITY
In my letter of April 6th, 2021 (“Is the vaccine interval putting people at risk), I quoted the British Columbia COVID-19 Ethical Decision-making Framework, which in part said that, “When resources are limited, usually those who need and can derive the greatest benefit... should be offered resources preferentially.”
In Newfoundland and Labrador, by categorizing and prioritizing high-risk groups/ individuals, government has, in part, followed that principle.
However, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and other media are now reporting that the situation in Ontario has become dire.
The media is also reporting that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is calling on Canada and the provinces to move away from its per-capita approach to vaccine distribution and to move quickly toward a focus on need.
The CMA also says that Canada should act quickly to work collaboratively with provinces that have low risk and that these provinces should, where it can, shift resources preferentially to those areas where the risk is greatest.
That would move the fight against COVID-19 away from an idealistic, per capita, one-solution-fits-all approach, to a more rational, and most importantly, a more effective riskmanagement approach.
Notwithstanding the increased need of some provinces, this province is standing by an earlier federal/provincial agreement to distribute vaccines on a per capita basis.
Since then, however, and based at least in part on the issue of “fairness,” The Telegram and Saltwire Network are backing the province’s position, and in an editorial on April 20th (“Send staff and gear, not shots”) put forth the position that “The vaccination schedule for Atlantic Canada should not be disrupted because of an outbreak in another province…” (and that)
“The per capita model offers the fairest level of distribution.”
But when there is a greater need elsewhere, is per-capita distribution really fair?
The Interaction Institution (https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vsequity/) equates fairness with equity, not equality.
It asks, “What is equity?” (And answers that), “In the simplest terms, it means fairness, which is not necessarily the same thing as equality. It’s not about everybody getting the same thing… It’s about everybody getting what they need in order to improve the quality of their situation.”
And the institution goes on to explain how fairness/equity differs from equality with an illustration that you can see with this letter online at saltwire.com.
Clearly, where this province can, and based on equity, it should step up to the plate — and it should do it now. Maurice E. Adams Paradise