1
|
Johnson S, Roberts S, Hayes S, Fiske A, Lucivero F, McLennan S, Phillips A, Samuel G, Prainsack B. Understanding Pandemic Solidarity: Mutual Support During the First COVID-19 Lockdown in the United Kingdom. Public Health Ethics 2023; 16:245-260. [PMID: 38333769 PMCID: PMC10849163 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2022] [Indexed: 02/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of solidarity has been invoked frequently. Much interest has centred around how citizens and communities support one another during times of uncertainty. Yet, empirical research which accounts and understands citizen's views on pandemic solidarity, or their actual practices has remained limited. Drawing upon the analysis of data from 35 qualitative interviews, this article investigates how residents in England and Scotland enacted, understood, or criticised (the lack of) solidarity during the first national lockdown in the United Kingdom in April 2020-at a time when media celebrated solidarity as being at an all-time high. It finds that although solidarity was practiced by some people, the perceived lack of solidarity was just as pronounced. We conclude that despite frequent mobilisations of solidarity by policy makers and other public actors, actual practices of solidarity are poorly understood-despite the importance of solidarity for public health and policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Johnson
- Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stephen Roberts
- Institute for Global Health, University College London (UCL), London, UK
- Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK
| | - Sarah Hayes
- Vienna School of International Studies, Diplomatic Academy Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Amelia Fiske
- Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Federica Lucivero
- Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stuart McLennan
- Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Amicia Phillips
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Gabrielle Samuel
- Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King’s College London, Bush House, The Strand, London, UK
| | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Neues Institutsgebäude, Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kraaijeveld SR, Gur-Arie R, Jamrozik E. A Scalar Approach to Vaccination Ethics. THE JOURNAL OF ETHICS 2023; 28:145-169. [PMID: 38375445 PMCID: PMC10874331 DOI: 10.1007/s10892-023-09445-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 07/28/2023] [Indexed: 02/21/2024]
Abstract
Should people get vaccinated for the sake of others? What could ground-and limit-the normative claim that people ought to do so? In this paper, we propose a reasons-based consequentialist account of vaccination for the benefit of others. We outline eight harm-based and probabilistic factors that, we argue, give people moral reasons to get vaccinated. Instead of understanding other-directed vaccination in terms of binary moral duties (i.e., where people either have or do not have a moral duty to get vaccinated), we develop a scalar approach according to which people can have stronger or weaker moral reasons to get vaccinated in view of the moral good of vaccination. One advantage of our approach is that it can capture why a person might have strong moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine A, but only weak moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine B. We discuss theoretical strengths of our approach and provide a case study of vaccination against COVID-19 to demonstrate its practical significance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven R. Kraaijeveld
- Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Rachel Gur-Arie
- Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, 550 N 3rd St., Phoenix, AZ 85004 USA
- Oxford-Johns Hopkins Global Infectious Disease Ethics (GLIDE) Collaborative, Oxford, United Kingdom, Baltimore, MD USA
| | - Euzebiusz Jamrozik
- Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF UK
- Royal Melbourne Hospital Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052 Australia
- Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Clayton, 3168 Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Giannakou K, Kyprianidou M, Heraclides A. Attitudes and Determinants of Mandatory Vaccination against COVID-19 among the General Population of Cyprus: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines (Basel) 2022; 10:438. [PMID: 35335070 PMCID: PMC8953644 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10030438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2022] [Revised: 03/08/2022] [Accepted: 03/10/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Vaccinations for the prevention of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are important to control the ongoing pandemic. A much-discussed strategy to increase vaccination coverage is mandatory vaccination; however, its legitimacy and effectiveness as a measure are doubtful. This study aims to investigate the attitudes of the general population of Cyprus towards COVID-19 mandatory vaccination and to identify the factors influencing individuals' attitudes towards such policy. An online cross-sectional study was conducted, using a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire to collect information on sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, trust, and satisfaction about the healthcare system and utilization of preventive healthcare services, COVID-19 vaccination information, general vaccination knowledge, and attitudes towards mandatory vaccination. A total of 2140 participants completed the survey, with 27.8% being in favor of mandatory vaccination. We found that as the age increases by one year, the odds of supporting mandatory vaccination increase by 1.04 units (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.05). In addition, those who reported increased trust in national healthcare authorities' guidelines and recommendations (OR 3.74, 95% CI: 3.11-4.49) and those satisfied with the healthcare system (OR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.16-1.65) and follow doctor's instructions (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.03-1.61), were significantly more likely to support mandatory vaccination while those who had underage children living in the household were significantly less likely to support mandatory vaccination (OR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50-0.94). Public health authorities need to develop well-organized vaccination campaigns in which accurate evidence-based information would be disseminated with respect to individuals' autonomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Konstantinos Giannakou
- Department of Health Sciences, School of Sciences, European University Cyprus, Nicosia 1516, Cyprus; (M.K.); (A.H.)
| | | | | |
Collapse
|