Whilst the risks of the oral polio vaccine are much smaller than those from the smallpox vaccine, they are far from infinitessimal. It is thus not immediately clear that a global vaccine-based eradication campaign could be successfully completed Panobinostat if all healthcare professionals took literally the demand that each intervention they provide should be in the best interest of each patient considered

as an individual. Even if it will be against the self-interest of some individuals to be vaccinated, this does not entail that eradication campaigns are unethical. Eradication campaigns are large-scale policy interventions. No one expects that an ethically acceptable government policy must be conducive to the best interests of each person considered as an individual [9]. Indeed, government policies frequently

allow suffering and death to occur in the pursuit of broader social goals, without these policies being thought to be automatically unethical on this basis. For example, road traffic accidents are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in every country. It would be possible to significantly reduce the number of deaths by greatly reducing speed CHIR-99021 in vitro limits – but both governments and the vast majority of their citizens take the view that doing so would be disproportionate given the economic benefits of fast road transportation, and the importance of personal liberty. To the extent that eradication campaigns are compared to ordinary medical practice they may look ethically problematic, but to the extent that they are compared to public policy contexts such as transport they may seem relatively unproblematic. Which is the right

frame to bring to the ethical consideration of eradication policies? This article provides an initial answer, by examining whether there is anything that is ethically exceptional about eradication [10]. If there is, we should expect eradication policies to be subject to sui generis ethical considerations; if there is not, we should expect standard approaches to the Modulators ethics of public health policy Olopatadine to be sufficient. I begin by examining three arguments that have been put forward for thinking that eradication is in some way special as a policy goal. These are (1) that global eradication has symbolic importance; (2) disease eradication is a global public good, and (3) disease eradication is a form of rescue. I argue that none of these arguments succeeds in showing that eradication is sui generis as a policy goal. None of these arguments provides a reason for thinking that public health authorities have special duties to pursue eradication campaigns, or that individuals have special duties to facilitate them.