For the purpose of the avian flu scenario, I will be evaluating the situation from the

perspective of a doctor. As a medical professional, I would rely on ethical guidelines that are
put forth by the Hippocratic Oath (HO) as well as the principles of autonomy, beneficence,
non-maleficence, and justice. Out of the choices provided, I would therefore select the option
of treating only the exposed. A close second and highly related option would be to prophylax
the hospital staff and provide others with infectious protection.
The major HO principles that I am operating under are 1) relying on the physician’s
ability and judgment, 2) benefiting the patient, and 3) abstaining from harmful and malicious
actions. I am also relying on the importance of justice and fairness to make these decisions. I
will begin by discussing my rejection of the other plans.
The option to treat people only under the age of 70 and the option to treat those most
likely to recover are related because they rule out treatment options for those who are likely
to suffer from the most severe cases of avian flu. Even though elderly individuals and those
with a difficult case of the illness are more likely to die, their right to maintain their health
and their life is no different from those affected with a lighter form of avian flu. In
accordance with principles of justice and fairness, it is paramount not to exclude populations
from access to treatment if they have come to seek it.
The only argument against this fairness policy would be that it is wiser not to “waste”
resources on those who are more ill because those limited resources will be better spent on
people who have a greater potential of recovering. However, because it is a complicated
matter about who will and will not recover, patient autonomy, or a patient’s ability to seek out
and ask for a treatment, overrules this concept. Moreover, if the extremely sick are refused
treatment, they are likely to be taken care of by those close to them, which will get more
healthy individuals sick. Thus, these are not appropriate options. The same logic can be
applied to the choice of treating the sickest patients—the scenario is undesirable because it
excludes another group that requires treatment.
Treating only those exposed to the disease is the option that falls most in accordance
with the HO and the principle of justice. On the surface, it may seem that we are excluding a
large group of people—those who have not been exposed to avian flu—but this “exclusion”
is different from the scenarios above. The other options attempt to exclude sick people who
need treatment for their condition, whereas this option provides care to everyone who needs
it. In fact, a simple exposure to avian flu does not stipulate that a person is sick with the
virus, so this plan treats both the sick and those highly at risk to get sick. Those who have not
been exposed to the virus at all are at lowest risk of having any health problems. Yes, there is
a danger that they will fall ill when exposed, so it would still be wise to administer vaccines
to this group, but in a resource-limited setting they understandably have the lowest priority.
Even so, when they are exposed, they immediately become entitled to protection against the
virus just like everyone else.
Prophylaxing the hospital staff and providing infectious protection to everyone else is
very similar to the above choice, but still worse off because it does not provide the same
treatment to all other people as received by the hospital staff. In the scenario where those
exposed to the virus are being treated, the hospital staff will likely already be prophylaxed
because they are in direct contact with the virus. Likewise, all other exposed individuals will
receive the appropriate highest level care instead of lower-level protection. Thus, the option
of treating the exposed gives the most benefit to the most people, minimally excludes at risk
groups, and respects patient autonomy as it provides care to those who seek it.