Requiring influenza vaccination for health care workers: seven truths we must accept

In this paper we outline the seven primary truths supporting the call for requiring influenza immunization of all health care workers. We view this as a serious patient safety issue, given the clear and compelling data regarding the frequency and severity of influenza infection. In addition, clear-cut safety, efficacy, economic, legal, and ethical platforms support the use of influenza vaccine. Unfortunately health care workers have demonstrated, over almost 25 years that they are unwilling to comply with voluntary influenza immunization programs utilizing a variety of education and incentive programs, at rates sufficient to protect the patients in their care. We suggest that an annual influenza immunization should be required for every health care worker with direct patient contact, unless a medical contraindication or religious objection exists, or an informed declination is signed by the health care worker. High rates of health care worker immunization will benefit patients, health care workers, their families and employers, and the communities within which they work and live.

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.

Ethical analysis of HPV vaccine policy options

Vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV) may soon be licensed. In contrast to most vaccine-preventable diseases, which are transmitted by air or casual contact, HPV is primarily transmitted by sexual contact. An analysis that applies ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, rule of double effect, and principlism, is needed for policy considerations. These analyses reveal that HPV vaccination can be recommended universally, including at ages 11-12 years. However, given concerns for autonomy, justice, as not all persons are at risk, and non-maleficence, HPV vaccine should not be mandated for school entry. Economic justice indicates a need to provide vaccination for the disadvantaged.

The scientific and public-health imperative for a vaccine against dental caries

Dental caries is caused by one of the most ubiquitous bacterial infections of humans. In many countries such as Brazil and China, this disease is reaching epidemic proportions, and it is clear that a more effective public-health measure to combat dental caries is needed, because disadvantaged children are the most severely affected. One of the main groups of oral microorganisms, the mutans streptococci, has been associated with the aetiology of dental caries, and preclinical studies of immunological interventions have shown the feasibility of interfering with this disease. Moreover, clinical trials have indicated that a mucosal immune response to a crucial antigen(s) of mutans streptococci can influence the pathogenesis of dental caries. Evidence that this antigen(s) is appropriate for use in a vaccine against dental caries, as well as evidence for an appropriate target population of individuals and a logical time of administration, has now emerged.

The moral obligation to be vaccinated: utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue

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.

Professionally responsible coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination counseling of obstetrical and gynecologic patients

The development of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines in the current and planned clinical trials is essential for the success of a public health response. This paper focuses on how physicians should implement the results of these clinical trials when counseling patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed about vaccines with government authorization for clinical use. Determining the most effective approach to counsel patients about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is challenging. We address the professionally responsible counseling of 3 groups of patients-those who are pregnant, those planning to become pregnant, and those breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed. We begin with an evidence-based account of the following 5 major challenges: the limited evidence base, the documented increased risk for severe disease among pregnant coronavirus disease 2019-infected patients, conflicting guidance from government agencies and professional associations, false information about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, and maternal mistrust and vaccine hesitancy. We subsequently provide evidence-based, ethically justified, practical guidance for meeting these challenges in the professionally responsible counseling of patients about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. To guide the professionally responsible counseling of patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed, we explain how obstetrician-gynecologists should evaluate the current clinical information, why a recommendation of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination should be made, and how this assessment should be presented to patients during the informed consent process with the goal of empowering them to make informed decisions. We also present a proactive account of how to respond when patients refuse the recommended vaccination, including the elements of the legal obligation of informed refusal and the ethical obligation to ask patients to reconsider. During this process, the physician should be alert to vaccine hesitancy, ask patients to express their hesitation and reasons for it, and respectfully address them. In contrast to the conflicting guidance from government agencies and professional associations, evidence-based professional ethics in obstetrics and gynecology provides unequivocal and clear guidance: Physicians should recommend coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination to patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed. To prevent widening of the health inequities, build trust in the health benefits of vaccination, and encourage coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and treatment uptake, in addition to recommending coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations, physicians should engage with communities to tailor strategies to overcome mistrust and deliver evidence-based information, robust educational campaigns, and novel approaches to immunization.

Public communication, risk perception, and the viability of preventive vaccination against communicable diseases

Because of the nature of preventive vaccination programs, the viability of these public health interventions is particularly susceptible to public perceptions. This is because vaccination relies on a concept of 'herd immunity', achievement of which requires rational public behavior that can only be obtained through full and accurate communication about risks and benefits. This paper describes how irrational behavior that threatens the effectiveness of vaccination programs--both in crisis and non-crisis situations--can be tied to public perceptions created by media portrayals of health risks. I concentrate on childhood vaccination as an exemplar of 'non-crisis' preventive vaccination, and on the recent flu vaccine shortage as a 'crisis' situation. The paper concludes with an examination of the steps necessary to resolve these threats through better public communication.

Religious barriers to measles vaccination

In 2014, the United States has experienced an increase in measles activity, the most since the elimination of the virus in 2000. The measles infection occurs in unvaccinated individuals. Communities and individuals choose to not vaccinate for a number of reasons, primarily citing religious and philosophical motives. Objections based upon religion most often center on the use of aborted human fetus tissue used in the rubella component of the combined vaccine products, and animal derived gelatins used in vaccine production. Objections among religious communities may also not be faith based, rather in some cases concerns related to lack of safety and efficacy of the vaccination result in refusal.

A defense of compulsory vaccination

Vaccine refusal harms and risks harming innocent bystanders. People are not entitled to harm innocents or to impose deadly risks on others, so in these cases there is nothing to be said for the right to refuse vaccination. Compulsory vaccination is therefore justified because non-vaccination can rightly be prohibited, just as other kinds of harmful and risky conduct are rightly prohibited. I develop an analogy to random gunfire to illustrate this point. Vaccine refusal, I argue, is morally similar to firing a weapon into the air and endangering innocent bystanders. By re-framing vaccine refusal as harmful and reckless conduct my aim is to shift the focus of the vaccine debate from non-vaccinators' religious and refusal rights to everyone else's rights against being infected with contagious illnesses. Religious freedom and rights of informed consent do not entitle non-vaccinators to harm innocent bystanders, and so coercive vaccination requirements are permissible for the sake of the potential victims of the anti-vaccine movement.

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.

Addressing Parental Vaccine Concerns: Engagement, Balance, and Timing

The recent United States measles epidemic has sparked another contentious national discussion about childhood vaccination. A growing number of parents are expressing concerns about the safety of vaccines, often fueled by misinformation from the internet, books, and other nonmedical sources. Many of these concerned parents are choosing to refuse or delay childhood vaccines, placing their children and surrounding communities at risk for serious diseases that are nearly 100% preventable with vaccination. Between 10% and 15% of parents are asking physicians to space out the timing of vaccines, which often poses an ethical dilemma for physicians. This trend reflects a tension between personal liberty and public health, as parents fight to control the decisions that affect the health of their children and public health officials strive to maintain high immunization rates to prevent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Interventions to address this emerging public health issue are needed. We describe a framework by which web-based interventions can be used to help parents make evidence-based decisions about childhood vaccinations.

Vaccination ethics

Vaccination decisions and policies present tensions between individual rights and the moral duty to contribute to harm prevention. This article focuses on ethical issues around vaccination behaviour and policies. It will not cover ethical issues around vaccination research.

SOURCES OF DATA

Literature on ethics of vaccination decisions and policies.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Individuals have a moral responsibility to vaccinate, at least against certain infectious diseases in certain circumstances.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Some argue that non-coercive measures are ethically preferable unless there are situations of emergency. Others hold that coercive measures are ethically justified even in absence of emergencies.

GROWING POINTS

Conscientious objection to vaccination is becoming a major area of discussion.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The relationship between individual, collective and institutional responsibilities to contribute to the public good of herd immunity will be a major point of discussion, particularly with regard to the COVID-19 vaccine.

A framework for rationing by clinical judgment

Although rationing by clinical judgment is controversial, its acceptability partly depends on how it is practiced. In this paper, rationing by clinical judgment is defined in three different circumstances that represent increasingly wider circles of resource pools in which the rationing decision takes place: triage during acute shortage, comparison to other potential patients in a context of limited but not immediately strained resources, and determination of whether expected benefit of an intervention is deemed sufficient to warrant its cost by reference to published population based thresholds. Notions of procedural justice are applied along with an analytical framework of six minimal requisites in order to facilitate fair bedside rationing: (1) a closed system that offers reciprocity, (2) attention to general concerns of justice, (3) respect for individual variations, (4) application of a consistent process, (5) explicitness, and (6) review of decisions. The process could be monitored for its applicability and appropriateness.

To Be or Not to Be Vaccinated? The Ethical Aspects of Influenza Vaccination among Healthcare Workers

Influenza is a highly contagious airborne disease with a significant morbidity and mortality burden. Seasonal influenza (SI) vaccination has been recommended for healthcare workers (HCWs) for many years. Despite many efforts to encourage HCWs to be immunized against influenza, vaccination uptake remains suboptimal. Sometimes there is a significant sign of improvement, only if numerous measures are taken. Is 'the evidence' and 'rationale' sufficient enough to support mandatory influenza vaccination policies? Most voluntary policies to increase vaccination rates among HCWs have not been very effective. How to close the gap between desired and current vaccination rates? Whether (semi)mandatory policies are justified is an ethical issue. By means of a MEDLINE search, we synthesized the most relevant publications to try to answer these questions. Neither the 'clinical' Hippocratic ethics (the Georgetown Mantra: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice), nor the 'public health' ethics frameworks resolve the question completely. Therefore, recently the 'components of justice' framework was added to the ethical debate. Most options to increase the uptake arouse little ethical controversy, except mandatory policies. The success of vaccination will largely depend upon the way the ethical challenges like professional duty and ethics (deontology), self-determination, vaccine hesitance, and refusal ('conscientious objector') are dealt with.

Medical ethics for children: applying the four principles to paediatrics

I will argue that there are difficulties with the application of the four principles approach to incompetent children. The most important principle - respect for autonomy - is not directly applicable to incompetent children and the most appropriate modification of the principle for them is not clear. The principle of beneficence - that one should act in the child's interests - is complicated by difficulties in assessing what a child's interests are and to which standard of interests those choosing for children should be held. A further problem with the four principles approach is that parental authority does not follow clearly from the four principles.