At the Ministry of Finance, the best brains are fussing over their calculators to find out how to impose a contribution on the unvaccinated.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
François Legault launched his order at the end of December at a press conference. But in Quebec, we quickly passed over a stage. Before discussing the “how”, we should have thought more about the “why”.
What is the point ? Would the contribution help achieve it? And if so, would it be ethical to impose it?
Life doing things very well, Quebec has a Commission on the ethics of science and technology. Its president, Jocelyn Maclure, teaches philosophy at McGill University. This commission now reports to the Ministry of the Economy and Innovation. Since no one in the government has asked for his opinion, I thought it would be appropriate to call him.
Short version, for readers in a hurry: Mr. Maclure does not think this is a good idea.
Now here is the slightly longer version.
What exactly is the problem, professor?
Before answering, he specifies that we do not yet know what amount would be invoiced, by which authority, when and with what possible exceptions.
But he is wary of the approach.
The health system is financed from taxes, according to a progressive logic. The richer you are, the more you contribute. We don’t charge people based on their care, level of risk, or behavior, he says.
But isn’t that what we do indirectly with tobacco?
“It’s a tax levied on a product for which we are already paying,” he replies. Health care is not a consumer good. You don’t take your credit card out in the hospital to pay for your visit. ”
In the eyes of the government, the contribution to the unvaccinated would however have the same effect as the tobacco tax: it would encourage a change in behavior that is harmful to health and costly for the community, while helping to finance public services.
The reality is more complex, believes Mr. Maclure.
The unvaccinated do not form a monolithic block. Some are reluctant to receive their doses, others firmly refuse them and a very noisy minority denounce the very existence of the vaccine.
“And again, it’s a simplistic portrait. We must investigate to find out how many refuse for reasons of mental health, because of the language barrier or other socioeconomic problems, ”he explains.
He recognizes that the contribution could be adjusted to mitigate its regressive effects, for example by going through the declaration of income in order to spare the homeless who do not produce it. But basically, he remains skeptical.
According to classical economic theory, people react rationally to financial incentives. It is a simplistic view of human nature. Some will probably be vaccinated to avoid the fine. But it is likely that others will radicalize against health measures, that the rich will pay without flinching, that the undecided will become more suspicious and that the poor will end up with one more bill.
“While waiting to have a precise portrait, I see only one objective for this contribution: to punish the unvaccinated to please the majority. This is not a valid justification. ”
What do you suggest then, Mr. Philosopher?
“Expand the vaccination passport. This is a measure that meets a legitimate goal: to reduce upstream contact with unvaccinated people to slow the progression of the virus. ”
But there again, the application of the passport to the branches of the SAQ and the SQDC leaves him skeptical. “The goal is to reduce risky contacts. Is this the case with a person who shops with the mask on for a short time? Or do we rather want to calm the discontent by depriving the unvaccinated of a service? I’m not necessarily against it, but we shouldn’t start there. ”
Mr. Maclure would prefer to apply the vaccination passport at work, including for SAQ employees who spend all day in the branch. And also require it in CEGEPs and universities, for teachers and students.
“A few months ago, I advocated the passport only for non-essential services. It is not trivial to violate the right to work and to education. But given the gravity of the situation, we are there. Think of a hairdressing salon. To protect colleagues and clients, it is reasonable to require that a hairdresser or hairdresser be vaccinated. ”
Mental health experts are shining the spotlight on the passport’s harms on these vulnerable people, and that’s great, says Maclure. “But we cannot limit ourselves to a one-sided analysis. We have to look at all categories of individuals, including the victims of the load shedding. They too are suffering. ”
He recognizes that expanding the passport would disproportionately target poor people. “No matter what we do, there would be negative consequences. Doing nothing also leads to problems. We have to keep an overview. ”
True to his habit, the tone of the philosopher remains gentle and compassionate. Despite his criticisms, I feel in him a form of empathy for the leaders.
Because as he sums it up well, “the pandemic requires tragic choices”.