Covid 19 was an unprecedented experience for everyone around the world. With unprecedented experiences come hard decisions. In the playing favorites article, we see first-hand difficult decisions at play with the ever-so-coveted and scarce COVID-19 vaccine. In this case, hospitals were pricking favorites and allowing early access for board members and large donors to get the vaccine. This decision by the hospital poses all sorts of ethical questions. Why should people who have lots of money be able to get the vaccine before patients who actually need it in order to survive the pandemic? This directly clashes with most ethical frameworks I have learned about. The two that come to mind right away are duty-based and utilitarianism.  Utilitarianism is choosing the path or outcome that leads to the most overall satisfaction or good. Choosing the board members to get the first doses does the exact opposite. There were other patients that were more at risk for infection and possible long-term effects than most of the board members. For duty, the whole point of a hospital and the health system is to treat the sick and vulnerable. By offering donors and board members the vaccine first the hospital neglected its duty to look after the sick and vulnerable. Yes, Covid was unpredictable and a hard time for everyone which led to this poor decision in the end but when you take a step back the hospital should have realized they were violating their own ethical code of conduct.