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
Regulating Genome Editing: For an Enlightened Democratic Governance
Cavaliere, G, Devolder, K, Giubilini, A
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
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.
Quarantine, isolation and the duty of easy rescue in public health.
Giubilini, A, Douglas, T, Maslen, H, Savulescu, J
Developing world bioethics
We address the issue of whether, why and under what conditions, quarantine and isolation are morally justified, with a particular focus on measures implemented in the developing world. We argue that the benefits of quarantine and isolation justify some level of coercion or compulsion by the state, but that the state should be able to provide the strongest justification possible for implementing such measures. While a constrained form of consequentialism might provide a justification for such public health interventions, we argue that a stronger justification is provided by a principle of State Enforced Easy Rescue: a state may permissibly compel individuals to engage in activities that entail a small cost to them but a large benefit to others, because individuals have a moral duty of easy rescue to engage in those activities. The principle of State Enforced Easy Rescue gives rise to an Obligation Enforcement Requirement: the state should create the conditions such that submitting to coercive or compulsive measures becomes a fundamental moral duty of individuals, i.e. a duty of easy rescue. When the state can create such conditions, it has the strongest justification possible for implementing coercive or compulsive measures, because individuals have a moral duty to temporarily relinquish the rights that such measures would infringe. Our argument has significant implications for how public health emergencies in the developing world should be tackled. Where isolation and quarantine measures are necessary, states or the international community have a moral obligation to provide certain benefits to those quarantined or isolated.