Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Table of Contents - April 2012 - Volume 35, Issue 02  

Open Peer Commentary

An ethical and prudential argument for prioritizing the reduction of parasite-stress in the allocation of health care resources

Russell Powella1, Steve Clarkea1 and Julian Savulescua1

a1 Science and Religious Conflict Project, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Institute for Science and Ethics, Oxford Martin School and Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1-1PT, United Kingdom. russell.powell@philosophy.ox.ac.uk stephen.clarke@philosophy.ox.ac.uk julian.savulescu@philosophy.ox.ac.uk http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/staff http://www.src.ox.ac.uk/staff.htm

Abstract

The link between parasite-stress and complex psychological dispositions implies that the social, political, and economic benefits likely to flow from public health interventions that reduce rates of non-zoonotic infectious disease are far greater than have traditionally been thought. We sketch a prudential and ethical argument for increasing public health resources globally and redistributing these to focus on the alleviation of parasite-stress in human populations.

Related Articles

    Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity Corey L. Fincher and Randy Thornhill Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131. fincher@unm.edu http://biology.unm.edu/fincher; Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 rthorn@unm.edu http://biology.unm.edu/Thornhill/rthorn.htm