1
|
Park JK, Davies B. Rationing, Responsibility, and Vaccination during COVID-19: A Conceptual Map. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2024; 24:66-79. [PMID: 37104661 PMCID: PMC11248994 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2201188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of scarce healthcare resources consistently presented significant moral and practical challenges. While the importance of vaccines as a key pharmaceutical intervention to stem pandemic scarcity was widely publicized, a sizable proportion of the population chose not to vaccinate. In response, some have defended the use of vaccination status as a criterion for the allocation of scarce medical resources. In this paper, we critically interpret this burgeoning literature, and describe a framework for thinking about vaccine-sensitive resource allocation using the values of responsibility, reciprocity, and justice. Although our aim here is not to defend a single view of vaccine-sensitive resource allocation, we believe that attending critically with the diversity of arguments in favor (and against) vaccine-sensitivity reveals a number of questions that a vaccine-sensitive approach to allocation should answer in future pandemics.
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has refocused attention on the issue of mandatory vaccination. Some have suggested that vaccines ought to be mandatory, while others propose more moderate alternatives, such as incentives. This piece surveys a range of possible interventions, ranging from mandates through to education. All may have their place, depending on circumstances. However, it is worth clarifying the options available to policymakers, since there is sometimes confusion over whether a particular policy constitutes a mandate or not. Further, I illustrate a different kind of alternative to mandatory vaccination. Rather than seeking less coercive alternatives to a mandate, we might instead employ an alternative mandate, which requires people to do something less than get vaccinated. For instance, we might merely require people to attend an appointment at a vaccine clinic. Whether this mandatory attendance policy is justified will depend on specific circumstances, but it represents another way to promote vaccination, without mandating it. In some cases, this may represent an appropriate balance between promoting public health goals and respecting individual liberty.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ben Saunders
- Corresponding author: Ben Saunders, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Giubilini A, Minerva F, Schuklenk U, Savulescu J. The 'Ethical' COVID-19 Vaccine is the One that Preserves Lives: Religious and Moral Beliefs on the COVID-19 Vaccine. Public Health Ethics 2021; 14:242-255. [PMID: 34899982 PMCID: PMC8344725 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phab018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Although the COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health and economic emergency, and although effective vaccines are the best weapon we have against it, there are groups and individuals who oppose certain kinds of vaccines because of personal moral or religious reasons. The most widely discussed case has been that of certain religious groups that oppose research on COVID-19 vaccines that use cell lines linked to abortions and that object to receiving those vaccine because of their moral opposition to abortion. However, moral opposition to COVID-19 vaccine research can be based on other considerations, both secular and religious. We argue that religious or personal moral objections to vaccine research are unethical and irresponsible, and in an important sense often irrational. They are unethical because of the risk of causing serious harm to other people for no valid reason; irresponsible because they run counter to individual and collective responsibilities to contribute to important public health goals; and in the case of certain kinds of religious opposition, they might be irrational because they are internally inconsistent. All in all, our argument translates into the rather uncontroversial claim that we should prioritize people's lives over religious freedom in vaccine research and vaccination roll out.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Julian Savulescu
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford; Visiting Professorial Fellow in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting International Professorship in Law, University of Melbourne
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Malm H, Navin MC. Pox Parties for Grannies? Chickenpox, Exogenous Boosting, and Harmful Injustices. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2020; 20:45-57. [PMID: 32840450 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1795528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Some societies tolerate or encourage high levels of chickenpox infection among children to reduce rates of shingles among older adults. This tradeoff is unethical. The varicella zoster virus (VZV) causes both chickenpox and shingles. After people recover from chickenpox, VZV remains in their nerve cells. If their immune systems become unable to suppress the virus, they develop shingles. According to the Exogenous Boosting Hypothesis (EBH), a person's ability to keep VZV suppressed can be 'boosted' through exposure to active chickenpox infections. We argue that even if this hypothesis were true, immunization policies that discourage routine childhood varicella vaccination in order to prevent shingles for other people are unethical. Such policies harm children and treat them as mere means for the benefit of others, and are inconsistent with how parents should treat their children and physicians should treat their patients. These policies also seem incompatible with institutional transparency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mark Christopher Navin
- Loyola University Chicago
- Oakland University
- Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Douglas T, Forsberg L, Pugh J. Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2020; 47:medethics-2020-106435. [PMID: 32820018 PMCID: PMC8639959 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106435] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2020] [Revised: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/12/2020] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
Would compulsory treatment or vaccination for COVID-19 be justified? In England, there would be significant legal barriers to it. However, we offer a conditional ethical argument in favour of allowing compulsory treatment and vaccination, drawing on an ethical comparison with external constraints-such as quarantine, isolation and 'lockdown'-that have already been authorised to control the pandemic in this jurisdiction. We argue that, if the permissive English approach to external constraints for COVID-19 has been justified, then there is a case for a similarly permissive approach to compulsory medical interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Douglas
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
- Jesus College, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
- Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
| | - Lisa Forsberg
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
- Faculty of Law, Oxford University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
- Somerville College, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
| | - Jonathan Pugh
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
- Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Garnier R, Nedell ER, Omer SB, Bansal S. Getting Personal: How Childhood Vaccination Policies Shape the Landscape of Vaccine Exemptions. Open Forum Infect Dis 2020; 7:ofaa088. [PMID: 32258205 PMCID: PMC7111605 DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2019] [Accepted: 03/12/2020] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Background State-mandated school entry immunization requirements in the United States play an important role in achieving high vaccine coverage, but variations in vaccine exemption policies result in a patchwork of vaccine coverage across the country. Methods In this study, we evaluate epidemiological effects and spatial variations in nonmedical exemption (NME) rates in the context of vaccine policies. We first analyze the correlation between NME rates and vaccine coverage for 3 significant childhood vaccinations. Furthermore, we assess the effects of policy changes in a subset of states, using a correlative approach at the state level and performing a clustering analysis at the county level. Results We find that higher rates of exemptions are associated with lower vaccination rates of school-aged children in all cases. In a subset of states where exemption policy has recently changed, we show that the effects on statewide NME rates vary widely and that decreases in NMEs can lead to an increase in other types of exemptions. Finally, our clustering analysis in California, Illinois, and Connecticut shows that policy changes affect the spatial distribution of NMEs. Conclusions Our work suggests that vaccination policies have significant impacts on patterns of herd immunity. Our findings can be used to develop evidence-based vaccine legislation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Romain Garnier
- Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Emma R Nedell
- Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Saad B Omer
- Yale Institute for Global Health, Yale University, New Haven, Conneticut, USA.,Department of Internal Medicine (Infectious Diseases), Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.,Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Shweta Bansal
- Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Giubilini A, Douglas T, Savulescu J. The moral obligation to be vaccinated: utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue. MEDICINE, HEALTH CARE, AND PHILOSOPHY 2018; 21:547-560. [PMID: 29429063 PMCID: PMC6267229 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-018-9829-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alberto Giubilini
- Oxford Martin School and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Littlegate House, St Ebbes St, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK.
| | - Thomas Douglas
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Littlegate House, St Ebbes St, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK
| | - Julian Savulescu
- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Littlegate House, St Ebbes St, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gostin LO. Mandatory vaccination: understanding the common good in the midst of the global polio eradication campaign. Isr J Health Policy Res 2018; 7:4. [PMID: 29298727 PMCID: PMC5753519 DOI: 10.1186/s13584-017-0198-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2017] [Accepted: 12/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The detection of wild poliovirus in Israeli sewage in May 2013 led the health authorities to vaccinate children with OPV (Oral Polio Vaccine). Shelly Kamin-Friedman explored the legal and ethical dimensions of this policy. This commentary makes three claims: (1) Mandatory vaccination is a valid exercise of the state's police powers to protect the common good. (2) A disease eradication campaign is a sufficient ground for the exercise of those powers. (3) The state is obliged to use the least restrictive/invasive measure to achieve community-wide vaccine coverage, but need not use less effective measures; further, determining which measure is most effective is a fact-specific determination. GOALS This commentary offers grounds to support state powers to protect the public's health and safety. It shows why governments have both the duty and power to safeguard the collective good. State powers also have limits, whose boundaries are determined by the public health necessity. If the state is reasonably using the least restrictive intervention to achieve an important public health objective, it is well within the limits of its authority. METHOD The commentary uses legal and ethical norms and evidence to support its conclusions. MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Governments have a duty and power to achieve population-based vaccine coverage sufficient to stem the spread of infectious diseases, including in isolated geographical areas with high numbers of individuals claiming religious and/or conscientious exemptions to vaccine requirements. Governments are obliged to reasonably seek the least restrictive/invasive measure to achieve valid public health objectives; and governments are not obliged to use less effective measures simply because they are voluntary or less invasive. Finding the most effective, least invasive intervention is fact-specific. The essence of public health law is to recognize the state's power and duty to safeguard the public's health and safety, and to establish and enforce limits on those powers when the government overreaches-that is, adopts a measure more invasive/restrictive than needed to achieve a valid public health objective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lawrence O Gostin
- O'Neill Chair in Global Health Law and Director, World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C, USA.
| |
Collapse
|