Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy

In a recent article in this journal, Kowalik argues that compulsory vaccination unjustifiably infringes on the autonomy of vaccine refusers. While accepting Kowalik's central premises, we argue that, when appropriately expanded in scope, autonomy considerations do not undermine the justifiability of compulsory vaccination. Vulnerable individuals-including the very old, the very young and those with compromised immune systems-face an omnipresent risk of contracting a potentially fatal vaccine-preventable illness and are thus prevented from accessing public goods by coercive pressure. Consequently, when we consider an appropriately broad scope of autonomy constraints, autonomy considerations do not undermine the case for mandating vaccination.

Solidarity in Pandemics, Mandatory Vaccination, and Public Health Ethics

Mandatory vaccination has been a highly disputed policy for tackling infectious diseases. Here I argue that a universal mandatory vaccination policy for the general public against the COVID-19 pandemic is ethically preferable when grounded in the concept of solidarity, which is defined by Barbara Prainsack and Alena Buyx as an enacted commitment to a relevant respect recognized by a group of individuals with equal moral status. This approach is complementary to utilitarian accounts and could better address other reasonable oppositions to mandatory vaccination. From a solidaristic account, the recognized relevant respect is to end the COVID-19 pandemic as soon as possible. This group of individuals would be willing to carry costs to assist each other in this respect, and a mandatory vaccination policy could be their institutionalized mutual assistance. The costs to be carried include both the financial costs of vaccination and the health costs stemming from potential adverse events and scientific uncertainties. The proposed social health insurance similarity test suggests the degree of coercion the mandatory vaccination policy could undertake within each state's specific legal and judicial context. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(2):255-261. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306578).

Considerations for fair prioritization of COVID-19 vaccine and its mandate among healthcare personnel

With current COVID-19 vaccine demand outweighing supply and the emergency authorization/rollout of three novel vaccines in the United States, discussions continue regarding fair prioritization among various groups for this scarce resource. The US federal government's recommended vaccination schedule, meant to assist states with vaccine allocation, demonstrates fair ethical considerations; however, difficulties remain comparing various groups to determine fair vaccine access and distribution. Although strides have been taken to analyze risks versus benefits of early vaccination across certain high-risk populations, prioritizing vulnerable populations versus essential workers remains challenging for multiple reasons. Similarly, as COVID-19 vaccine allocation and distribution continues in the US and in other countries, topics that require continued consideration include sub-prioritization among currently prioritized groups, prioritization among vulnerable groups disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, like ethnic minorities, and holistic comparisons between groups who might receive various and disparate benefits from vaccination. Although all current COVID-19 vaccines are emergency authorization use only and a vaccine mandate would be considered only once these vaccines are licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration, future vaccination policies require time and deliberation. Similarly, given current vaccine hesitancy, mandatory vaccination of certain groups, like healthcare personnel, may need to be considered when these vaccines are licensed, especially if voluntary vaccination proves insufficient. Continued discussions regarding risks versus benefits of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and the unique role of healthcare personnel in providing a safe healthcare environment could lead to better deliberation regarding potential policies. This commentary aims to address both questions of fair prioritization and sub-prioritization of various groups, as well as ethical considerations for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare personnel.

Global Ethical Considerations Regarding Mandatory Vaccination in Children

Whether children should be vaccinated against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) (or other infectious diseases such as influenza) and whether some degree of coercion should be exercised by the state to ensure high uptake depends, among other things, on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. For COVID-19, these factors are currently unknown for children, with unanswered questions also on children's role in the transmission of the virus, the extent to which the vaccine will decrease transmission, and the expected benefit (if any) to the child. Ultimately, deciding whether to recommend that children receive a novel vaccine for a disease that is not a major threat to them, or to mandate the vaccine, requires precise information on the risks, including disease severity and vaccine safety and effectiveness, a comparative evaluation of the alternatives, and the levels of coercion associated with each. However, the decision also requires balancing self-interest with duty to others, and liberty with usefulness. Separate to ensuring vaccine supply and access, we outline 3 requirements for mandatory vaccination from an ethical perspective: (1) whether the disease is a grave threat to the health of children and to public health, (2) positive comparative expected usefulness of mandatory vaccination, and (3) proportionate coercion. We also suggest that the case for mandatory vaccine in children may be strong in the case of influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?

Mandatory vaccination, including for COVID-19, can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for non-compliance are proportionate. I describe an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination. Penalties or costs could include withholding of benefits, imposition of fines, provision of community service or loss of freedoms. I argue that under conditions of risk or perceived risk of a novel vaccination, a system of payment for risk in vaccination may be superior. I defend a payment model against various objections, including that it constitutes coercion and undermines solidarity. I argue that payment can be in cash or in kind, and opportunity for altruistic vaccinations can be preserved by offering people who have been vaccinated the opportunity to donate any cash payment back to the health service.

Local deliberative approach to the bioethical controversies: An opportunity for the proper implementation of neonatal screening

Introduction: The controversial characteristics of neonatal screening influenced by bioethical considerations make its implementation complex. Colombia is not an exception in this sense and local circumstances complicate the panorama. Objective: To establish how bioethical controversies on neonatal screening are approached at a local level as a basis for deliberating on the must-be of this activity in Colombia. Materials and methods: A survey immersed in an interpretative investigation with descriptive and deliberative components of analysis was applied to approach the values exposed by officials of the Colombian Instituto Nacional de Salud. Results: The compulsory offer of screening by the nation, regardless of its opportunity cost and the consent for the use in research of results and residual samples, were not controversial, but, in contrast, the type of information and the consent to authorize screening did arise controversy. The more experienced officials preferred mandatory screening (17.7 vs. 11.79 years on average, p=0.007). Surprisingly, despite the risk of discrimination, keeping the neonate as the purpose, there was agreement on giving all the information to parents and medical records. Another controversial aspect was the follow-up of cases without hiding their identification where officials with more experience in bioethical aspects preferred the use of codes (4.5 vs. 1.26 years on average, p=0.009). In this context, strategies such as informed dissent, specialized advice or public health programs that appreciate diversity would allow to rescue even seemingly opposite values. Conclusion: A local approach regarding what ought to be in neonatal screening based on a deliberative bioethical perspective allowed to present an implementation proposal for this activity

Participated without consent: Mandatory authorization of government database for secondary use

Compared with data that is initially collected for research purposes, the mandatory authorization of a government database for secondary use deserves greater scrutiny because it consists of information that is collected initially for administrative purposes. Using the case of Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) Database as an example, this paper analyzes the ethical issues that emerge when the research participants are "participated" in studies without their consent, according to the current policy. The proponents of secondary use for research purposes maintain that the authorized use of the NHI Database is necessary for public interests, while the opponents argue that the potential lack of democratic accountability and the infringement on people's rights to privacy and information autonomy is unwarranted. Drawing on the solidarity-based approach, this paper proposes a temporal solution as a possible reform direction for better ethical justification of the secondary use of the NHI Database.

[Parental refusal to mandatory vaccination in Chile. Ethical and legal challenges]

This article is an ethical and legal reflection about the current trend of parents to refuse vaccination of their children under a legal regime that establishes mandatory use of certain vaccines. We analyze the main arguments used by parents to refuse obligatory vaccination, i.e., the fear of the negative effects that vaccination may have on the child; the violation of the "right to autonomy"; religious or pseudo-philosophical beliefs; and the resistance to the State intervention in personal or family mat ters. Therefore, this statement implies a necessary ethical analysis of childhood vaccination. Finally, it will be discussed the responsibility of parents and the State -the health authority- in the care of mi nors. Vaccination is a benefit for both the inoculated and the community, the best preventive policy. At the same time, it is considered a complex case that demands a profound debate, whose purpose should be the transition from an apparent conflict between parents and the State, to convergence for the care of minors. In other words, it is emphasized the fact that parents, beyond the fulfillment of a heterogeneous normative duty, must act motivated by voluntary adherence to the best interest of the child and the community.

Vaccination: Is There a Place for Penalties for Non-compliance?

The introduction of punitive measures to control outbreaks of measles in Europe has sparked debate and public protest about the ethical justification of penalties and exclusionary processes for non-immunisation. This article advances an ethics framework related to compulsory vaccination policies, which we use to analyse three case studies: of mandatory policies that are enforced by fines; of policies that require vaccination for the provision of social goods; and of community-led policies in which communities themselves decide how to enforce vaccination compliance. We report on contemporary, ongoing and past measures that have been used to increase vaccine uptake, consider their rationale and the related public responses, elaborate on socio-cultural and contextual influences, and discuss the ethical justification for mandatory vaccination. We argue for a measured approach that protects fundamental human rights to evidence-based information and medical counsel to support health decision making and that simultaneously raises awareness about the role of immunisation in protecting the wider community. We think more emphasis needs to be placed on immunisation as a means of promoting social good, reducing harm and protecting vulnerable groups.

Protecting Moral Integrity Through Justified Exemption

Medical professionals have a duty to prioritize patient needs and well-being, even when doing so is deemed distasteful or unpleasant. This does not mean, however, that such professionals are obliged to provide medical interventions when participation threatens their core moral integrity. Myriad state and federal "conscience clause" statutes and regulations have codified such protections, but in a way that makes it too easy to claim exemption. This essay argues that, given professional obligations and systemic power asymmetries, the burden of proof falls upon professionals to show that participation in the requested service represents a genuine threat to their integrity, as opposed to being merely offensive or economically disadvantageous. It concludes with a suggested mechanism for determining whether the exemption request is justified.

Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires an ethically consistent health strategy

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to public health. The reasons are complex but linked inextricably to a lack of trust in vaccines, expertise and traditional sources of authority. Efforts to increase immunization uptake in children in many countries that have seen a fall in vaccination rates are two-fold: addressing hesitancy by improving healthcare professional-parent exchange and information provision in the clinic; and, secondly, public health strategies that can override parental concerns and values with coercive measures such as mandatory and presumptive vaccination.

MAIN TEXT

It is argued that such conflicting, parallel approaches seriously risk undermining trust that is crucial for sustaining herd immunity. Although public health strategies can be ethically justified in limiting freedoms, a parent-centered approach seldom acknowledges how it is impacted by contemporaneous coercive measures. In addition, the clinical encounter is not well suited to helping parents consider the public dimensions of vaccination, despite these being important for trust formation and informed decision-making. Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy require more consistent engagement of parental and citizen views. Along with evidence-based information, debates need to be informed by ethical support that equips parents and professionals to respond to the private and public dimensions of vaccination in a more even-handed, transparent manner.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy need to avoid simple reliance on either parental values or coercive public policies. To do this effectively requires increasing citizen engagement on vaccination to help inform a parent-centered approach and legitimize public policy measures. In addition, cultivating a more ethically consistent strategy means moving beyond the current silos of health ethics - clinical and public health ethics.

The Ethical Case for Mandating HPV Vaccination

When the HPV vaccine was released over a decade ago, there was intense opposition to mandating the vaccine, including among bioethics and legal scholars. Some of the original concerns are now obsolete, while other objections continue to present an obstacle to mandating the vaccine. This essay responds to earlier critiques of mandatory HPV vaccination and offers a series of arguments in support of a vaccine mandate. The first section briefly addresses initial concerns that are no longer relevant. The second section makes the ethical case for mandating HPV vaccination, based on three principles: 1) the best interests of children, 2) solidarity, and 3) health equity. The final section addresses concerns related to implementation of the vaccine, including the validity of linking vaccination to school entry. The essay concludes that we have a moral imperative to protect children from the leading cause of cervical cancer, and that mandating HPV vaccination is the best way to ensure that children of all backgrounds receive the vaccine before they have been exposed to the virus.

Raising Rates of Childhood Vaccination: The Trade-off Between Coercion and Trust

Vaccination is a highly effective public health strategy that provides protection to both individuals and communities from a range of infectious diseases. Governments monitor vaccination rates carefully, as widespread use of a vaccine within a population is required to extend protection to the general population through "herd immunity," which is important for protecting infants who are not yet fully vaccinated and others who are unable to undergo vaccination for medical or other reasons. Australia is unique in employing financial incentives to increase vaccination uptake, mainly in the form of various childcare payments and tax benefits linked to timely, age-appropriate vaccination. Despite relatively high compliance with the childhood vaccination schedule, however, the Australian government has determined that rates should be higher and has recently introduced policy that includes removing certain tax and childcare benefits for non-vaccinators and formally disallowing conscientious objection to vaccination ("No Jab No Pay"). In addition, it has raised the possibility of banning unvaccinated children from childcare centres ("No Jab No Play"). This article examines the impact of coercive approaches to childhood vaccination and raises the question of the ethical justification of health policy initiatives based on coercion. We consider the current evidence regarding childhood vaccination in Australia, the small but real risks associated with vaccination, the ethical requirement for consent for medical procedures, and the potential social harms of targeting non-vaccinators. We conclude that the evidence does not support a move to an increasingly mandatory approach that could only be delivered through paternalistic, coercive clinical practices.

Ethical considerations in the uptake of influenza vaccination by healthcare workers

OBJECTIVES

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends annual seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs). Under the current voluntary scheme in England, uptake of vaccine in this group remains well below the 75% target. A mandatory scheme may improve rates, but raises the ethical issue of imposed vaccination. However, the existing voluntary scheme could also potentially infringe autonomy if those not wanting to join feel pressured or coerced into vaccination. The aim of this study was to explore HCW views and experiences with the current influenza vaccination programme.

STUDY DESIGN

Questionnaire survey.

METHODS

Between March 2015 and April 2016, a total of 140 questionnaires were completed across seven HCW groups, with the demographic, vaccination and opinion data statistically analysed using the chi-squared test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate.

RESULTS

No staff group met the national influenza vaccination target of 75% and vaccination rates varied between HCW groups. All groups reported some degree of external pressure to be vaccinated and there were mixed views on the concept of mandatory vaccination, with a lack of certainty over the vaccine's efficacy and/or a lack of information the most common reasons for not supporting it.

CONCLUSION

The current voluntary influenza vaccination scheme has a number of flaws. Improvements in the quality and availability of information provided to employees may help Trusts increase vaccination rates, or achieve acceptance of any proposed mandatory programme.

Refusal of Vaccination: A Test to Balance Societal and Individual Interests

While all states in the United States require certain vaccinations for school attendance, all but three allow for religious exemptions to receiving such vaccinations, and 18 allow for exemptions on the basis of other deeply held personal beliefs. The rights of parents to raise children as they see fit may conflict with the duty of the government and society to protect the welfare of children. In the U.S., these conflicts have not been settled in a uniform and consistent manner. We apply a test that provides a concrete and formal rubric to evaluate such conflicts. For some vaccinations, based on the individual medical characteristics of the disease and the risks of being unvaccinated, the test would suggest that permitting conscientious exemptions is ethical. However, for vaccinations protecting against other diseases that are more severe or easily transmitted, the test would suggest that the federal government may ethically impose laws that deny such exemptions.

A libertarian case for mandatory vaccination

This paper argues that mandatory, government-enforced vaccination can be justified even within a libertarian political framework. If so, this implies that the case for mandatory vaccination is very strong indeed as it can be justified even within a framework that, at first glance, loads the philosophical dice against that conclusion. I argue that people who refuse vaccinations violate the 'clean hands principle', a (in this case, enforceable) moral principle that prohibits people from participating in the collective imposition of unjust harm or risk of harm. In a libertarian framework, individuals may be forced to accept certain vaccines not because they have an enforceable duty to serve the common, and not because cost-benefit analysis recommends it, but because anti-vaxxers are wrongfully imposing undue harm upon others.

A Shot in the Arm for the Military: Consent to Immunisation Against Biological Warfare Agents

The risk to Britain's Armed Forces from Biological Warfare (BW) is low but without protection their use would be devastating. Available protective measures include immunisation.

The Government owes a legal duty of care to Servicemen to provide protection against a range of hazards, including those of BW. The State also owes Servicemen a duty of care to allow free and informed consent or free and informed refusal to medical procedures, including immunisation. However, refusal by key personnel to accept BW immunisation could degrade operational capability. Resolution between these two, potentially conflicting, duties of care may be controversial. To override a soldier's expressed interests would rank society's needs higher than those of the individual. Yet there are circumstances, such as exposure of Servicemen to BW used by an aggressor, where this would be ethically acceptable.

The State's interests, combined with the best interests of the Serviceman, provide adequate ethical argument for both occupational immunisation (where it is an entry criterion for the Armed Forces) and mandatory immunisation (where disciplinary action may be taken against the non-compliant). Historically, both approaches have been used for public health immunisations and the legal framework already exists for both.

Victims, vectors and villains: are those who opt out of vaccination morally responsible for the deaths of others?

Mass vaccination has been a successful public health strategy for many contagious diseases. The immunity of the vaccinated also protects others who cannot be safely or effectively vaccinated-including infants and the immunosuppressed. When vaccination rates fall, diseases like measles can rapidly resurge in a population. Those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons are at the highest risk of severe disease and death. They thus may bear the burden of others' freedom to opt out of vaccination. It is often asked whether it is legitimate for states to adopt and enforce mandatory universal vaccination. Yet this neglects a related question: are those who opt out, where it is permitted, morally responsible when others are harmed or die as a result of their decision? In this article, we argue that individuals who opt out of vaccination are morally responsible for resultant harms to others. Using measles as our main example, we demonstrate the ways in which opting out of vaccination can result in a significant risk of harm and death to others, especially infants and the immunosuppressed. We argue that imposing these risks without good justification is blameworthy and examine ways of reaching a coherent understanding of individual moral responsibility for harms in the context of the collective action required for disease transmission. Finally, we consider several objections to this view, provide counterarguments and suggest morally permissible alternatives to mandatory universal vaccination including controlled infection, self-imposed social isolation and financial penalties for refusal to vaccinate.

Mandatory Influenza Immunization for Health Care Workers—An Ethical Discussion

Influenza is a serious vaccine-preventable disease affecting 20% of the U.S. population each year. Vaccination of high-risk groups has been called the single most important influenza control measure by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Studies show that vaccination can lead to decreases in flu-related illness and absenteeism among health care workers, as well as fewer acute care outbreaks and reduced patient mortality in long-term care settings. However, to date, voluntary programs have achieved only a 40% vaccination rate among health care workers, causing concern among government and infectious disease organizations. This article addresses the ethical justification for mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Health care workers' attitudes toward vaccination are presented, as well as historical and legal perspectives on compulsory measures. The ethical principles of effectiveness, beneficence, necessity, autonomy, justice, and transparency are discussed.

Newborn screening of inherited metabolic disorders: the Italian situation

Starting from an international overview of the current status of screening programs, the present paper focuses on the legal situation in Italy and the great differences among Italian regions. Since the introduction of tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) in the ‘90s the paradigm “one spot-one disease” changed. Only recently, some regions issued legislative acts to promote expanded newborn screening with MS/MS. This approach raises medico-legal and ethical issues because a fast neonatal diagnosis of an inborn error of metabolism (IEM) could increase chances of an early treatment and reduce disabilities, therefore citizens ought to have the same access to care countrywide. Enacting a mandatory standard for a disease screening panel using MS/MS and a few centers specialized in diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients affected by IEM (inborn errors of metabolism) can reduce legal and ethical issues.

Mandatory addiction treatment for people who use drugs: global health and human rights analysis

Global evidence indicates that mandated treatment of drug dependence conflicts with drug users’ human rights and is not effective in treating addiction. Karsten Lunze and colleagues argue that drug treatment policies must be evidence based and meet international standards

Adding justice to the clinical and public health ethics arguments for mandatory seasonal influenza immunisation for healthcare workers

Ethical considerations from both the clinical and public health perspectives have been used to examine whether it is ethically permissible to mandate the seasonal influenza vaccine for healthcare workers (HCWs). Both frameworks have resulted in arguments for and against the requirement. Neither perspective resolves the question fully. By adding components of justice to the argument, I seek to provide a more fulsome ethical defence for requiring seasonal influenza immunisation for HCWs. Two critical components of a just society support requiring vaccination: fairness of opportunity and the obligation to follow democratically formulated rules. The fairness of opportunity is informed by Rawls' two principles of justice. The obligation to follow democratically formulated rules allows us to focus simultaneously on freedom, plurality and solidarity. Justice requires equitable participation in and benefit from cooperative schemes to gain or profit socially as individuals and as a community. And to be just, HCW immunisation exemptions should be limited to medical contraindications only. In addition to the HCWs fiduciary duty to do what is best for the patient and the public health duty to protect the community with effective and minimally intrusive interventions, HCWs are members of a just society in which all members have an obligation to participate equitably in order to partake in the benefits of membership.

Mandatory influenza vaccination for health care workers as the new standard of care: a matter of patient safety and nonmaleficent practice

A growing body of literature defends the efficacy of seasonal influenza vaccination for health care workers in reducing the mortality of hospitalized patients. I review the evidence concerning influenza vaccination, concluding that universal vaccination of health care workers against influenza should be considered standard patient care and that nonvaccination represents maleficent care. I further argue that the ethical responsibility to ensure universal vaccination of staff against seasonal influenza lies not only with individual health care providers but with each individual health care institution.

Rising rates of vaccine exemptions: problems with current policy and more promising remedies

Parents of school-age children are increasingly claiming nonmedical exemptions to refuse vaccinations required for school entry. The resultant unvaccinated pockets in many areas of the country have been linked with outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Many states are now focused on reducing rates of nonmedical exemptions by making exemption processes more restrictive or burdensome for the exemptor. These strategies, however, pose ethical problems and may ultimately be inadequate. A shift to strategies that raise the financial liabilities of exemptors may lead to better success and prove ethically more sound. Potential areas of reform include tax law, health insurance, and private school funding programs. We advocate an approach that combines this type of incentive with more effective vaccination education.

An ethical analysis of mandatory influenza vaccination of health care personnel: implementing fairly and balancing benefits and burdens

Health care institutions have paid increasing attention to preventing nosocomial transmission of influenza through vaccination of health care personnel. While multifaceted voluntary interventions have increased vaccination rates, proponents of mandatory programs contend the rates remain unacceptably low. Conventional bioethical analyses of mandatory programs are inadequate; they fail to account for the obligations of nonprofessional personnel or to justify the weights assigned to different ethical principles. Using an ethics framework for public health permits a fuller analysis. The framework's focus on fairness accentuates the potential differences between the risk of transmitting infection and employment status, and the need to equitably evaluate exemptions. The framework's emphasis on balancing benefits and burdens highlights the need to justify a specific goal and questions the need to exclude all nonmedical exemptions. While mandatory vaccination programs are justifiable, greater attention should be paid to their implementation.