https://www.socictopen.socict.org/files/original/44497538ac433713787b76f1f9fccca6.pdf 73ad3cc7b38eaea5cf28bbe681d4ff0a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coronavirus Description An account of the resource Dominio científico: Coronavirus Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Prioritising access to pandemic influenza vaccine: a review of the ethics literature Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Angus Dawson, Jane H. Williams Description An account of the resource Abstract Background The world is threatened by future pandemics. Vaccines can play a key role in preventing harm, but there will inevitably be shortages because there is no possibility of advance stockpiling. We therefore need some method of prioritising access. Main text This paper reports a critical interpretative review of the published literature that discusses ethical arguments used to justify how we could prioritise vaccine during an influenza pandemic. We found that the focus of the literature was often on proposing different groups as priorities (e.g. those with pre-existing health conditions, the young, the old, health care workers etc.). Different reasons were often suggested as a means of justifying such priority groupings (e.g. appeal to best overall outcomes, fairness, belonging to a vulnerable or ‘at risk’ group etc.). We suggest that much of the literature, wrongly, assumes that we are able to plan priority groups prior to the time of a particular pandemic and development of a particular vaccine. We also point out the surprising absence of various issues from the literature (e.g. how vaccines fit within overall pandemic planning, a lack of specificity about place, issues of global justice etc.). Conclusions The literature proposes a wide range of ways to prioritise vaccines, focusing on different groups and ‘principles’. Any plan to use pandemic vaccine must provide justifications for its prioritisation. The focus of this review was influenza pandemic vaccines, but lessons can be learnt for future allocations of coronavirus vaccine, if one becomes available. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 Subject The topic of the resource Ethics, vaccine, pandemic influenza, Prioritisation, critical interpretative review Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DOI: 10.1186/s12910-020-00477-3 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived BMC Medical Ethics Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available BMC Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Medical philosophy. Medical ethics