Argument Against Toxic Diseases

As a chief medical officer, I have a deep responsibility to protect the vulnerable and disadvantaged population against catastrophic diseases (motivation factor), particularly when resources are limiting (Herzberg’s two-factor theory). With this in mind, four patients that would receive the vaccine are: the gay physician, the prostitute, the crippled boy and the 82-year old restaurant owner. I believe that addressing their dire needs would fulfill my responsibility and have a positive impact on overall safety of the community (Expectancy theory). The reasons for each patient are listed as follows.

1) I choose the primary care physician for two reasons. First, because of his profession as a frontline physician, he is at high risk for both exposure and further spreading to other vulnerable people due to his regular contact with the community. Second, as vaccines are rationed during times of crisis, his sexual orientation
As a low-income individual, she is likely to be poorly informed of the diseases and experience barriers to accessing quality care, while she remains one of the most vulnerable to both exposure and spreading to the community.

3) The reason why a crippled boy is chosen is that the disability group is also commonly discriminated against due to ignorance or perceived stigma, which denies them equal access to quality healthcare. Younger populations with disabilities are particularly vulnerable as their lives are often thought to be less worth compared to those without disabilities.

4) Similarly, in a youth oriented society, the elderly populations are often treated with disdain. They are especially susceptible to health disparities during crisis as they are thought to stand less chance for successful clinical outcome (poor “return” from the investment). To ensure the restaurant owner doesn’t fall in this inequality gap, I choose him as my fourth candidate for