Against an Inflexible, Prioritized List for Default Surrogate Selection.

AbstractSurrogate selection can be extremely consequential for patients. Most surrogates are selected by default, so we should care about whether legal provisions for default surrogate selections are ethically justified. Most U.S. states use an inflexible, prioritized list of relationships, that is, a hierarchical list where eligible classes of higher-ranked individuals must be selected before lower-ranked individuals. I argue that while some inflexible, prioritized lists may roughly reflect the order that many patients would select, there is a significant minority that inflexible lists systematically disempower. This is morally unacceptable given the availability of less morally problematic alternatives. One alternative is a flexible, prioritized list, which provides conditions for lower-ranked individuals to be selected ahead of higher-ranked ones. I argue that since all the U.S. states that currently have an inflexible, prioritized list systematically disempower a significant proportion of their residents, they have good reason to adopt a flexible, prioritized list instead. Furthermore, the Universal Law Commission currently recommends that states adopt an inflexible, prioritized list, so they have good reason to change their recommendation.

Crisis Nationalism: To What Degree Is National Partiality Justifiable during a Global Pandemic?

Are countries especially entitled, if not obliged, to prioritize the interests or well-being of their own citizens during a global crisis, such as a global pandemic? We call this partiality for compatriots in times of crisis "crisis nationalism". Vaccine nationalism is one vivid example of crisis nationalism during the COVID-19 pandemic; so is the case of the US government's purchasing a 3-month supply of the global stock of the antiviral Remdesivir for domestic use. Is crisis nationalism justifiable at all, and, if it is, what are its limits? We examine some plausible arguments for national partiality, and conclude that these arguments support crisis nationalism only within strict limits. The different arguments for partiality, as we will note, arrive at these limits for different reasons. But more generally, so we argue, any defensible crisis nationalism must not entail the violation of human rights or the worsening of people's deprivation. Moreover, we propose that good faith crisis nationalism ought to be sensitive to the potential moral costs of national partiality during a global crisis and must take extra care to control or offset these costs. Thus, crisis nationalism in the form of vaccine nationalism or the hoarding of global supplies of therapeutics during a global pandemic exceeds the bounds of acceptable partiality.