The Role of Patient Zero in the Spread of Infectious Diseases: An Analysis of Major Ethical Perspectives

Ethical Perspectives:1
MAJOR ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES
By
(name)
Course
Tutor
University
Date

Ethical Perspectives:2
Role of patient zero in the spread of a disease.
The first person to be infected by recently discovered or new outbreak of a bacterial or
viral outbreak is referred to as patient zero or the index case. They are carriers of the disease
form that is least mutated or most basic and thus rendering them to be of insignificant value to
medical efforts or completely of no use. They are usually the key leads in investigations aimed at
determining the source of the disease in question. Patient zero is the chief contributor towards
spread of infectious diseases and again carries all the blame for the same. There are five major
ethical perspectives and they could be based in loading the entire issue of spreading of infectious
diseases on the shoulders of patient zero as discussed henceforth in details.
The first ethical perspective is Utilitarianism. It literally implies that one has to do the
greatest good for the greatest number of people. Normally, before making any significant
decision, all the advantages and disadvantages of the available alternatives are worth weighing
for the right choice to be made (Häyry, 2013). The bases of utilitarianism are usually on the
premise that similar to all other types of decisions, the consequences of the ethical choices made
should be the guiding factors while making such decisions. It was the argument of English
philosophers John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and his colleague Bentham J. (1748-1832) that right
decisions (a) source a majority of benefits in contrast to their shortfalls and (b) they are
beneficial to a large number of people. It therefore points out that the chief attempt of
utilitarianism is to unveil the greatest good for the majority.
When making an ethical decision, utilitarians put into consideration both long-term and
short-term consequences of the decision to be made. An alternative is rejected if its future
possible costs are not outweighed by its immediate benefits. If, however the immediate good is

Ethical Perspectives:3
certain and an uncertain future good but of great possibility of occurrence, such an alternative is
taken. Another issue that is of more concern to utilitarians is the harm to evil ratio rather than the
entire amount of satisfaction, happiness or unhappiness emanating from the choice. A decision
that derives a substantial amount of good but at the same time an equal amount of harm would be
disposed and instead resolve to such a decision that derives a moderate amount of good and little
or no cost.
Choice selection is a three-step process as guided by utilitarian principles (West, 2004).
First, there is identification of all courses of action which are possibly actionable. The second
step involves evaluation and estimation of all direct costs as well as indirect costs attributable to
the decision and the benefits for each option. The third step involves selection of and settling on
alternatives whose product will be maximum amount of good basing on cost-benefit ratios
generated in the second step. It is therefore the duty of patient zero to run the pre-mentioned
evaluations in their minds upon learning of their status as patient zero. This should be in attempt
to reduce the chances of exposing the general population at large to the new virus that they have
already contracted themselves. They should take a bold step to inform the respective authorities
upon sighting any suspicious signs and symptoms. Utilitarianism is therefore an approach
popular to moral reasoning.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative is another perspective that digs deep into morality and
ethics (Cholbi, 2016). The implication of this perspective is that one ought to do what is right
regardless of the consequences. It was Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German philosopher, who
is attributed to developing a simple set of rules that could be applicable to all ethical decisions. It
was his argument that moral imperatives or duties are categorical and hence no exemption should
be made while obeying them. He further added that individuals should do what is morally right