Alberto Giubilini is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow on the Oxford Martin Programme on Collective Responsibility for Infectious Disease. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Milan (2010), and prior to joining the Uehiro Centre he worked in Australia at Monash University, University of Melbourne and Charles Sturt University. He has published on different topics in bioethics and philosophy, including the ethics of procreative choices, end of life decisions, organ donations, conscientious objection in healthcare, the concept of conscience, human enhancement, and the role of intuitions and of moral disgust in ethical arguments. He has published a book in Italian on the ethics of end of life decisions (Morals in the Time of Bioethics, Le Lettere 2011) and co-edited a book on The Ethics of Human Enhancement (Oxford University Press 2016) together with Julian Savulescu, Steve Clarke, Tony Coady and Sagar Sanyal. More information and a full CV can be found at his Academia webpage, here.
Giubilini, A, Minerva, F
The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: a forum for bioethics and philosophy of medicine
Impartiality and infectious disease: prioritising individuals versus the collective in antibiotic prescription
Dao, B, DOUGLAS, T, GIUBILINI, A, SAVULESCU, J, Selgelid, M, FABER, N
Ajob Empirical Bioethics
Regulating Genome Editing: For an Enlightened Democratic Governance.
Cavaliere, G, Devolder, K, Giubilini, A
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees
How should we regulate genome editing in the face of persistent substantive disagreement about the moral status of this technology and its applications? In this paper, we aim to contribute to resolving this question. We first present two diametrically opposed possible approaches to the regulation of genome editing. A first approach, which we refer to as "elitist," is inspired by Joshua Greene's work in moral psychology. It aims to derive at an abstract theoretical level what preferences people would have if they were committed to implementing public policies regulating genome editing in a context of ethical pluralism. The second approach, which we refer to as the democratic approach, defended by Francoise Baylis and Sheila Jasanoff et al., emphasizes the importance of including the public's expressed attitudes in the regulation of genome editing. After pointing out a serious shortcoming with each of these approaches, we propose our own favored approach-the "enlightened democracy" approach-which attempts to combine the strengths of the elitist and democratic approaches while avoiding their weaknesses.
The moral obligation to be vaccinated: utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue.
Giubilini, A, Douglas, T, Savulescu, J
Medicine, health care, and philosophy
We argue that individuals who have access to vaccines and for whom vaccination is not medically contraindicated have a moral obligation to contribute to the realisation of herd immunity by being vaccinated. Contrary to what some have claimed, we argue that this individual moral obligation exists in spite of the fact that each individual vaccination does not significantly affect vaccination coverage rates and therefore does not significantly contribute to herd immunity. Establishing the existence of a moral obligation to be vaccinated (both for adults and for children) despite the negligible contribution each vaccination can make to the realisation of herd immunity is important because such moral obligation would strengthen the justification for coercive vaccination policies. We show that two types of arguments-namely a utilitarian argument based on Parfit's Principle of Group Beneficence and a contractualist argument-can ground an individual moral obligation to be vaccinated, in spite of the imperceptible contribution that any single vaccination makes to vaccine coverage rates. We add a further argument for a moral obligation to be vaccinated that does not require embracing problematic comprehensive moral theories such as utilitarianism or contractualism. The argument is based on a "duty of easy rescue" applied to collectives, which grounds a collective moral obligation to realise herd immunity, and on a principle of fairness in the distribution of the burdens that must be borne to realise herd immunity.
Influenza Vaccination Strategies Should Target Children.
Strategies to increase influenza vaccination rates have typically targeted healthcare professionals (HCPs) and individuals in various high-risk groups such as the elderly. We argue that they should (instead or as well) focus on increasing vaccination rates in children. Because children suffer higher influenza incidence rates than any other demographic group, and are major drivers of seasonal influenza epidemics, we argue that influenza vaccination strategies that serve to increase uptake rates in children are likely to be more effective in reducing influenza-related morbidity and mortality than those targeting HCPs or the elderly. This is true even though influenza-related morbidity and mortality amongst children are low, except in the very young. Further, we argue that there are no decisive reasons to suppose that children-focused strategies are less ethically acceptable than elderly or HCP-focused strategies.
Thus, for instance, in the US, where child vaccination is a condition for enrolling
children in day care or state schools, the ... Largent (2017) have argued,
burdensome exemption procedures are likely to be the most ethical vaccination
Challenging Human Enhancement
The ethics of human enhancement: understanding the debate
The Ethics of Human Enhancement
Clarke, S, Savulescu, J, Coady, CAJ, Giubilini, A, Sanyal, S