No-fault compensation schemes for COVID-19 vaccine injury: a mixed bag for claimants and citizens

The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) presented a unique set of challenges. There was a global need for safe, effective vaccines against a new virus. In response to the development of vaccines for COVID-19 (some of which used novel technologies), there was a proliferation of no-fault compensation schemes (NFCS) for COVID-19 vaccine injuries. We identified 28 national vaccine injury NFCS operating in December 2019. Just 2 years later, over 130 countries had some NFCS coverage for COVID-19 vaccines. This rapid expansion was primarily driven by the creation of three multinational schemes. The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) scheme covers vaccines given under the COVAX framework in 92 low and middle-income countries across the globe. The African Vaccines Acquisition Trust (AVAT) scheme covers vaccines administered under the AVAT framework in 36 African and Caribbean countries. The UNICEF scheme covers vaccines administered by UNICEF in 18 Asian countries.Because of the sudden expansion of no-fault compensation for vaccine injury, especially in developing economies, more research on the foundations, procedures and outcomes of NFCS is needed. In this article, we examine how these NFCS meet the needs of individual claimants and society more widely. To do so, we first review the rationales offered to support the creation of vaccine injury NFCS. We then argue that, in order to achieve their function as compensation mechanisms, NFCS should be accessible and offer substantive and procedural justice to claimants. Finally, we focus on transparency and accountability as necessary requirements to allow scrutiny over existing NFCS and their wider impacts.

A global redistributive auction for vaccine allocation

The global allocation of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic is widely perceived as unfair. Priority was given to countries that paid the most with little or no concern for who needed the vaccines the most. No satisfactory institutions have been established to allocate vaccines in a future pandemic. In this paper, we join reformers in proposing a new scheme for vaccine distribution: a global auction for vaccines where profits are distributed fairly to participating countries. Our proposal improves upon previous suggestions morally by taking countries' differing valuations of money and vaccines seriously. Since an auction is in the interest of both vaccine manufacturers and high-income countries, it is also politically feasible. A global redistributive auction for vaccines thus promises to be a robust and morally desirable way to allocate vaccines.

Dark side of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality: the case of mandatory vaccination

Deciding the conflict between various rights and interests, especially in medical ethics where health and lives are in question, has significant challenges, and to obtain appropriate outcomes, it is necessary to properly apply the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. Using the example of mandatory vaccination policies, we show that this task becomes even more difficult when these principles lead us to counterintuitive and paradoxical results. Although the general purpose of these principles is to ensure that decisions and policies seek the highest and broadest possible enjoyment of rights for all (ie, the least restrictive solution), they achieve the complete opposite when applied to mandatory vaccination policies. To highlight and explain these paradoxical results, we present a typology of fifteen hypothetical mandatory vaccination policies containing various degrees of restriction and apply well-established non-discrimination and proportionality tests from constitutional law to each. We argue that mandatory vaccination policies exhibit two characteristics, namely the non-linear relationship between their general purposes and specific goals and the involvement of life and health, suggesting that more restrictive policies should prevail even though less restrictive policies might fail these tests. Using clearly structured and rigorous methodology from constitutional law, the proposed approach delivers a fresh view on the core ethical principles of non-discrimination and proportionality and a potentially useful tool in helping resolve also other challenges encountered in medical ethics beyond mandatory vaccination policies.

Other possible perspectives for solving the negative outcome penalty paradox in the application of artificial intelligence in clinical diagnostics

Artificial intelligence (AI), represented by machine learning, artificial neural networks and deep learning, is impacting all areas of medicine, including translational research (from bench to bedside to health policy), clinical medicine (including diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and healthcare resource allocation) and public health. At a time when almost everyone is focused on how to better realise the promise of AI to transform the entire healthcare system, Dr Appel calls for public attention to the AI in medicine and the negative outcome penalty paradox. Proposing this topic has deepened our thinking about the application of AI in clinical diagnostics, and also prompted us to find more effective ways to integrate AI more effectively into future clinical practice. In addition to Dr Appel's insightful advice, I hope to offer three other possible perspectives, including changing public perceptions, re-engineering clinical practice processes and introducing more stakeholders, to further the discussion on this topic.

COVID-19 and the vaccine tax: an egalitarian, market-based approach to the global vaccine inequality

The global inequality in the distribution of vaccines is unjust. As countries scrambled to ensure enough vaccines, the world's poorest were left to fend for themselves, and the generosity meant to mitigate this through COVAX was not sufficiently forthcoming. In light of this, I proposed a vaccine tax, which obligates those willing and able to pay to protect their own population to contribute to protecting those residing in the world's low-income countries. Petrovic has offered an important critique of this proposal, questioning both the fairness and the efficiency of the tax. However, when properly specified, the vaccine tax is not vulnerable to these critiques.

Ectogestation for men: why aren't we talking about it?

Andrea Bidoli argues that ectogestation could be seen as an emancipatory intervention for women. Specifically, she claims that ectogestation would create unique conditions to reevaluate one's reproductive preference, address certain specific negative social implications of gestation and childbirth, and that it is unfair to hold ectogestation to a higher standard than other innovations such as modern contraceptives and non-medical egg freezing. In this commentary, I claim that Bidoli-like so many others-unjustly bypasses men and their reproductive desires. For a long time, the discussion of the ethics of ectogenesis has focused on women and their reproductive liberation. However, since in many countries, an increasing number of men in reproductive age face difficulties in finding a partner and lack access to other forms of assisted reproduction, it is men who need ectogestation the most.

[To Do More and Better Regarding Portugal's Alcohol Consumption, a Social Change Is Needed]

N/a.

Reassessing the VaxTax

To counter the imbalance in vaccine distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic, Albertsen and more recently Germani et al have suggested a new system of taxation coined as 'VaxTax' that would force higher-income countries to fund the access of low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to new vaccines in times of pandemic. I will argue that this idea faces numerous challenges of ethical, sociopolitical and economical nature that may hinder any effort to solve the numerous health challenges that LMICs face. I argue that while it is an interesting idea, it is neither sufficient nor will it ever be easily implemented because of socioeconomic or practical reasons.

Enhancing social value considerations in prioritising publicly funded biomedical research: the vital role of peer review

The main goal of publicly funded biomedical research is to generate social value through the creation and application of knowledge that can improve the well-being of current and future people. Prioritising research with the greatest potential social value is crucial for good stewardship of limited public resources and ensuring ethical involvement of research participants. At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), peer reviewers hold the expertise and responsibility for social value assessment and resulting prioritisation at the project level. However, previous research has shown that peer reviewers place more emphasis on a study's methods ('Approach') than on its potential social value (best approximated by the criterion of 'Significance'). Lower weighting of Significance may be due to reviewers' views on the relative importance of social value, their belief that social value is evaluated at other stages of the research priority-setting process or the lack of guidance on how to approach the challenging task of assessing expected social value. The NIH is currently revising its review criteria and how these criteria contribute to overall scores. To elevate the role of social value in priority setting, the agency should support empirical research on how peer reviewers approach the assessment of social value, provide more specific guidance for reviewing social value and experiment with alternative reviewer assignment strategies. These recommendations would help ensure that funding priorities align with the NIH's mission and the obligation of taxpayer-funded research to contribute to the public good.

Ladders and stairs: how the intervention ladder focuses blame on individuals and obscures systemic failings and interventions

Introduced in 2007 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the intervention ladder has become an influential tool in bioethics and public health policy for weighing the justification for interventions and for weighing considerations of intrusiveness and proportionality. However, while such considerations are critical, in its focus on these factors, the ladder overemphasises the role of personal responsibility and the importance of individual behaviour change in public health interventions. Through a study of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine mandates among healthcare workers, this paper investigates how the ladder obscures systemic factors such as the social determinants of health. In overlooking these factors, potentially effective interventions are left off the table and the intervention ladder serves to divert attention away from key issues in public health. This paper, therefore, proposes a replacement for the intervention ladder-the intervention stairway. By broadening the intervention ladder to include systemic factors, the stairway ensures relevant interventions are not neglected merely due to the framing of the issue. Moreover, it more accurately captures factors influencing individual health as well as allocations of responsibility for improving these factors.

Gain-of-function research and model organisms in biology

So-called 'gain-of-function' (GOF) research is virological research that results in a virus substantially more virulent or transmissible than its wild antecedent. GOF research has been subject to ethical analysis in the past, but the methods of GOF research have to date been underexamined by philosophers in these analyses. Here, we examine the typical animal used in influenza GOF experiments, the ferret, and show how despite its longstanding use, it does not easily satisfy the desirable criteria for an animal model We then discuss the limitations of the ferret model, and how those epistemic limitations bear on ethical and policy questions around the risks and benefits of GOF research. We conclude with a reflection on how philosophy of science can contribute to ethical and policy debates around the risks, benefits and relative priority of life sciences research.

The ethical canary: narrow reflective equilibrium as a source of moral justification in healthcare priority-setting

Healthcare priority-setting institutions have good reason to want to demonstrate that their decisions are morally justified-and those who contribute to and use the health service have good reason to hope for the same. However, finding a moral basis on which to evaluate healthcare priority-setting is difficult. Substantive approaches are vulnerable to reasonable disagreement about the appropriate grounds for allocating resources, while procedural approaches may be indeterminate and insufficient to ensure a just distribution. In this paper, we set out a complementary, coherence-based approach to the evaluation of healthcare priority-setting. Drawing on Rawls, we argue that an institutional priority-setter's claim to moral justification can be assessed, in part, based on the extent to which its many normative commitments are mutually supportive and free from dissonance; that is, on the ability to establish narrow reflective equilibrium across the normative content of a priority-setter's policy and practice. While we do not suggest that the establishment of such equilibrium is sufficient for moral justification, we argue that failure to do so might-like the proverbial canary in the coalmine-act as a generalised warning that something is awry. We offer a theoretical argument in support of this view and briefly outline a practical method for systematically examining coherence across priority-setting policy and practice.

Getting rights right: implementing 'Martha's Rule'

The UK government has recently committed to adopting a new policy-dubbed 'Martha's Rule'-which has been characterised as providing patients the right to rapidly access a second clinical opinion in urgent or contested cases. Support for the rule emerged following the death of Martha Mills in 2021, after doctors failed to admit her to intensive care despite concerns raised by her parents. We argue that framing this issue in terms of patient rights is not productive, and should be avoided. Insofar as the ultimate goal of Martha's Rule is the provision of a clinical service that protects patient safety, an approach that focuses on the obligations of the health system-rather than the individual rights of patients-will better serve this goal. We outline an alternative approach that situates rapid clinical review as part of a suite of services aimed at enhancing and protecting patient care. This approach would make greater progress towards addressing the difficult systemic issues that Martha's Rule does not, while also better engaging with the constraints of clinical practice.

Environmental sustainability and the paradox of prevention

The carbon emissions of global healthcare activities make up 4%-5% of total world emissions, with the majority coming from industrialised countries. The solution to healthcare carbon reduction in these countries, ostensibly, would be preventive healthcare, which is less resource intensive than corrective healthcare in itself and, as a double benefit, reduces carbon by preventing diseases which may require higher healthcare carbon to treat. This leads to a paradox: preventive healthcare is designed to give humans longer, healthier lives. But, by extending life spans, the carbon emissions of a person increase both over a lifetime and in the medical industry overall. At the same time, the need for higher carbon end-of-life care does not disappear, particularly in resource intensive countries. This article will first identify sources of healthcare carbon, focusing on the industrialised world, and explain various efforts towards healthcare carbon reduction, which include preventive healthcare. Second, it will develop the 'paradox of prevention'-that preventive healthcare may save healthcare carbon by proximally reducing the need for medical treatments, but also, paradoxically, result in more healthcare carbon both in an individual's life and in the medical industry. The third section will offer ethical principles for approaching the paradox of prevention. The conclusion will emphasise the need for institutional approaches to healthcare carbon reduction in the industrialised world, which will relieve some of the tensions of healthcare industry decarbonisation and individual healthcare carbon use.

Single women's access to egg freezing in mainland China: an ethicolegal analysis

In the name of safeguarding public interests and ethical principles, China's National Health Commission bans unmarried women from using assisted reproductive technology (ART), including egg freezing. Supported by local governments, the ban has restricted single women's reproductive rights nationwide. Although some courts bypassed the ban to allow widowed single women to use ART, they have not adopted a position in favour of single women's reproductive autonomy, but quite the contrary. Faced with calls to relax the ban and allow single women to freeze eggs electively, the National Health Commission refused to amend their policy, partly to protect women's well-being paternalistically and partly to implement the central government's policies to boost the birthrate and maintain traditional family structures. While the government's concerns about elective egg freezing are not entirely unfounded, they have failed to demonstrate that banning single women's egg freezing is a suitable, necessary and proportionate means to safeguard societal interests and ethical principles. The authority's assumptions that women cannot make rational decisions for their health even with adequate informed consent procedures, that banning egg freezing by single women promotes a culture of having children 'at a proper age', and that egg freezing by single women offends China's public moralities have not been substantiated.

Doing Health Policy Analysis: The Enduring Relevance of Simple Models Comment on "Modelling the Health Policy Process: One Size Fits All or Horses for Courses"

The analysis of health policy processes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) emerged as a research area in the early 1990s. In their recent editorial Powell and Mannion argue that such research can be deepened by applying public policy theory. In response, we raise three questions to consider: are public policy models fit for purpose in today's world in LMICs (and what other theory can be used)? Is using theory the most important factor in deepening such research? Why do we, as researchers, do this work? Ultimately, we argue that the value of simple models, such as those already used in health policy analysis, lies in their enduring relevance and widespread use. They are supporting the development of the shared understandings that can, in turn, provide the basis for collective action addressing inequities in health and well-being.

Blowing the whistle on mixed gender hospital rooms in Australia and New Zealand: a human rights issue

The practice of placing men and women in the same hospital room (mixed gender rooms) has been prohibited in the UK National Health Service for over a decade. However, recent research demonstrates that the practice is common and increasing in a major New Zealand public hospital. Reports and complaints show that the practice also occurs in Australia. We argue that mixed gender rooms violate the fundamental human rights of personal security and dignity. The high rates of cognitive impairment, sensory impairment and frailty in hospital wards exacerbates the risk for these violations and subsequent harm. We argue for the adoption of specific national policies prohibiting mixed gender rooms and public reporting of breaches. Importantly, these guidelines can be adopted without compromising the rights of gender minorities. In the long term, hospitals should be built with single occupancy rooms.

Changes in retail tobacco product sales and market share among retail payroll establishments in the U.S. Economic Census between 1997 and 2017

The tobacco industry spends the vast majority of their marketing and promotional budget at retail outlets. However, few studies have used publicly available data to examine trends in the number and types of retail establishments where tobacco products are sold. Using the U.S. Economic Census for 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2017 (the latest year), we examined the number, type, and sales of payroll establishments selling tobacco products. Nine store types accounted for 94% - 99% of tobacco product sales between 1997 and 2017. Gas/convenience stores had the greatest market share (33% - 49% of tobacco sales). The number of warehouse clubs selling tobacco quadrupled; however, market share only increased from 9.6% to 10.3%. Supermarkets experienced the largest decrease in percent of stores selling tobacco. Pharmacy tobacco sales increased in 2012 then decreased in 2017; per store sales volume more than doubled between 1997 and 2012. Online shopping accounted for less than 1% of the market share between 1997 and 2012, but rose to 6.3% in 2017. Between 1997 and 2017, consumers shifted where they purchased tobacco products. Declining tobacco sales in supermarkets is a promising trend for consumers seeking healthy food without exposure to tobacco product marketing; however, the consistently large number of tobacco retailers, and thus widespread tobacco availability, is concerning. Consumer tobacco purchase changes over time support the case for point-of-sale policies that affect different retail types, including pharmacy bans, to reduce tobacco retailer density. Additionally, the rapid shift to online tobacco purchasing in 2017 identifies a new target for enhanced regulation and enforcement.

Policy Makes Politics Comment on "Modelling the Health Policy Process: One Size Fits All or Horses for Courses?"

Powell and Mannion's review of reviews maps the landscape of health policy research, showing a number of problematic and longstanding features. This commentary focuses on the extent to which health parochialism is good for the scientific development of the literature, the extent to which a "tournament of theories" actually develops our understanding of health policy process, and, finally, whether circumscribed theories of the policy process might be missing some of the most important and useful findings of broader comparative politics, which focus on the ways policies create politics over time. It concludes that health parochialism and focus on a circumscribed policy process is not likely to be helpful because it distracts attention from the ways in which coalitions and institutions over time shape politics and policy, a finding explored by scholars of many sectors whose findings should influence health policy research.

Herd immunity, vaccination and moral obligation

The public health benefits of herd immunity are often used as the justification for coercive vaccine policies. Yet, 'herd immunity' as a term has multiple referents, which can result in ambiguity, including regarding its role in ethical arguments. The term 'herd immunity' can refer to (1) the herd immunity threshold, at which models predict the decline of an epidemic; (2) the percentage of a population with immunity, whether it exceeds a given threshold or not; and/or (3) the indirect benefit afforded by collective immunity to those who are less immune. Moreover, the accumulation of immune individuals in a population can lead to two different outcomes: elimination (for measles, smallpox, etc) or endemic equilibrium (for COVID-19, influenza, etc). We argue that the strength of a moral obligation for individuals to contribute to herd immunity through vaccination, and by extension the acceptability of coercion, will depend on how 'herd immunity' is interpreted as well as facts about a given disease or vaccine. Among other things, not all uses of 'herd immunity' are equally valid for all pathogens. The optimal conditions for herd immunity threshold effects, as illustrated by measles, notably do not apply to the many pathogens for which reinfections are ubiquitous (due to waning immunity and/or antigenic variation). For such pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, mass vaccination can only be expected to delay rather than prevent new infections, in which case the obligation to contribute to herd immunity is much weaker, and coercive policies less justifiable.