Jewish Ethics of Inmate Vaccines Against COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic broke out at the end of 2019, and throughout 2020 there were intensive international efforts to find a vaccine for the disease, which had already led to the deaths of some five million people. In December 2020, several pharmaceutical companies announced that they had succeeded in producing an effective vaccine, and after approval by the various regulatory bodies, countries started to vaccinate their citizens. With the start of the global campaign to vaccinate the world's population against COVID-19, debates over the prioritization of different sections of the population began around the world, but the prison population has generally been absent from these discussions. APPROACH AND FINDINGS: This article presents the approach of Jewish ethics regarding this issue, that is, that there is a religious and a moral obligation to heal the other and to take care of his or her medical well-being and that this holds true even for a prisoner who has committed a serious crime. Hence, prisoners should be vaccinated according to the same priorities that govern the administration of the vaccine among the general public. ORIGINALITY: The originality of the article is in a comprehensive and comparative reference between general ethics and Jewish ethics on a subject that has not yet received the proper attention.

Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences.

Financial incentives to encourage healthy and prosocial behaviours often trigger initial behavioural change1-11, but a large academic literature warns against using them12-16. Critics warn that financial incentives can crowd out prosocial motivations and reduce perceived safety and trust, thereby reducing healthy behaviours when no payments are offered and eroding morals more generally17-24. Here we report findings from a large-scale, pre-registered study in Sweden that causally measures the unintended consequences of offering financial incentives for taking the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We use a unique combination of random exposure to financial incentives, population-wide administrative vaccination records and rich survey data. We find no negative consequences of financial incentives; we can reject even small negative impacts of offering financial incentives on future vaccination uptake, morals, trust and perceived safety. In a complementary study, we find that informing US residents about the existence of state incentive programmes also has no negative consequences. Our findings inform not only the academic debate on financial incentives for behaviour change but also policy-makers who consider using financial incentives to change behaviour.

Moral Foundations Predict COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Evidence from a National Survey of Black Americans.

In this study we examine the role of moral values in predicting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black Americans. Guided by moral foundations theory, we assess the associations between six moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity, liberty) and attitudes and intentions toward COVID-19 vaccination. Results of a national survey of Black Americans (N = 1,497) indicate that the care and loyalty moral foundations consistently predicted less vaccine hesitancy with overall more favorable attitudes and intentions toward COVID-19 vaccination, whereas the purity and liberty moral foundations were consistently associated with greater vaccine hesitancy. Relationships between the foundations and vaccine hesitancy were mediated by perceived vaccine effectiveness and safety. Implications of the findings for COVID-19 vaccine communication are discussed.

Correspondencia vacunación-inmunización como necesidad social y reto para la ciencia y la educación médica / Vaccination-immunization correspondence as a social need and challenge for science and medical education

Introducción: La vacunación constituye el arma preventiva más efectiva para las enfermedades trasmisibles que conoce la humanidad. Hacer que las vacunas aplicadas sean realmente inmunizantes resulta la responsabilidad de los profesionales de la atención primaria. Del mismo modo, es importante que se acepte, sin recelo, la vacunación, sobre todo en la situación epidemiológica actual. Objetivo: Describir las implicaciones sociales, económicas y éticas relacionadas con la existencia de vacunas teóricamente no inmunizantes. Métodos: Se emplearon los resultados de un programa de intervención educativa en edades pediátricas en el Policlínico 13 de marzo. Se utilizó la prueba de rangos con signo de Wilcoxon, con índice de confianza del 95 por ciento. Resultados: Inicialmente, predominó el nivel inadecuado de conocimiento, que luego mejoró significativamente. Se recuperaron 48 niños no vacunados y 29 vacunaciones no inmunizados. Conclusiones: No existe correspondencia entre las coberturas vacunales y la inmunización. Están instauradas, como correctas, falsas contraindicaciones para la vacunación. La intervención educativa fue efectiva, y se hizo patente la pertinencia de programas de pregrado y posgrado que perfeccionen la formación de los profesionales y la calidad en el desempeño profesional(AU)

Introduction: Vaccination is the most effective preventive weapon for communicable diseases known to humanity. It is the responsibility of primary health care professionals to ensure that the administered vaccines are truly immunizing. Likewise, it is important that vaccination be accepted without hesitations, especially in the current epidemiological situation. Objective: To describe the social, economic and ethical implications related to the existence of theoretically nonimmunizing vaccines. Methods: The results of an educational intervention program in pediatric ages at 13 de Marzo Policlinic were used. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used, with a confidence index of 95 percent. Results: Initially, an inadequate level of knowledge predominated, which later improved significantly. Forty-eight unvaccinated children and 29 unimmunized children recovered. Conclusions: There is no correspondence between vaccination coverage and immunization. False contraindications for vaccination are established as correct. The educational intervention was effective, while the relevance became evident for undergraduate and postgraduate programs to improve the training of professionals and the quality of professional performance(AU)

¿Es posible obligar a las personas a vacunarse? Nudge contra el coronavirus / Is it possible to force people to be vaccinated? Nudge against coronavirus / É possível obrigar as pessoas a vacinar-se? Cutucar contra o coronavírus

Resumen: Sabemos que el mundo enfrenta una terrible pandemia. La ciencia, con esfuerzo y prontitud, ha podido desarrollar diversas vacunas contra el covid-19, generando ello grandes expectativas. Sin embargo, por diversos factores, los procesos masivos de vacunación no han avanzado a la velocidad requerida; uno de los principales es la resistencia de muchas personas a vacunarse, aduciendo diferentes razones. Frente a esta situación se ha oscilado entre la realización de campañas de publicidad hasta propuestas de imposición forzada. Una alternativa para ir más allá de lo meramente lírico y lo coercitivo es generar formas de motivación para que aquellas personas decidan voluntariamente vacunarse a través de diversas medidas, directas e indirectas, apelando a "Nudge" -o "teoría del pequeño empujón"-, con el fin de propiciar la mejor protección de la salud individual y colectiva, tema del que trata el presente artículo, a partir de la revisión bibliográfica sobre la materia y diversas experiencias en la lucha contra el coronavirus.

Abstract: We all know that the world is facing a terrible pandemic. Science, with effort and promptness, has been able to develop various vaccines against Covid-19, generating great expectations. However, mass vaccination processes have not advanced at the required speed due to various factors; one of the main ones is the resistance of many people to get vaccinated, for different reasons. Faced with this situation, it has oscillated between carrying out advertising campaigns to proposals for forced imposition. An alternative to go beyond the merely lyrical and coercive is to generate forms of motivation for those people to voluntarily decide to be vaccinated through various measures, direct and indirect, appealing to "Nudge" -or the "little push theory" - in order to promote the best protection of individual and collective health, the subject of this article, based on the bibliographic review on the matter and various experiences in the fight against coronavirus.

Resumo: Sabemos que o mundo enfrenta uma terrível pandemia. A ciência, com esforço e prontidão, pode desenvolver diversas vacinas contra a Covid-19, gerando grandes expectativas. Sem dúvida, os processos massivos de vacinação não avançaram à velocidade requerida por diversos fatores; um dos principais é a resistência de muitas pessoas a vacinar-se, alegando diferentes razões. Frente a esta situação, observou-se uma oscilação entre a realização de campanhas de publicidade a propostas de imposição forçada. Uma alternativa para ir além do meramente lírico e do coercitivo é gerar formas de motivação para que as pessoas decidam voluntariamente vacinar-se através de diversas medidas, diretas e indiretas, apelando a "Nudge" -ou a "teoria do pequeno empurrão"- a fim de propiciar a melhor proteção da saúde individual e coletiva, tema do que trata o presente artigo, a partir da revisão bibliográfica sobre a matéria e diversas experiências na luta contra o coronavírus.

Considering a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pediatric kidney transplant candidates.

The world continues to face the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in protecting recipients, decreasing the risk of COVID-19 acquisition, transmission, hospitalization, and death. Transplant recipients may be at greater risk for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. As a result, transplant programs have begun instituting mandates for COVID-19 vaccine for transplant candidacy. While the question of mandating COVID-19 vaccine for adult transplant candidates has garnered attention in the lay and academic press, these discussions have not explicitly addressed children who may be otherwise eligible for kidney transplants. In this paper we seek to examine the potential ethical justifications of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pediatric kidney transplant candidacy through an examination of relevant ethical principles, analogous cases of the use of mandates, differences between adult and pediatric kidney transplant candidates, and the role of gatekeeping in transplant vaccine mandates. At present, it does not appear that pediatric kidney transplant centers are justified to institute a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for candidates. Finally, we will offer suggestions to be considered prior to the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

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).

The role of non-COVID-specific and COVID-specific factors in predicting a shift in willingness to vaccinate: A panel study.

Although declines in intent to vaccinate had been identified in international surveys conducted between June and October 2020, including in the United States, some individuals in the United States who previously expressed reluctance said, in spring 2021, that they were willing to vaccinate. That change raised the following questions: What factors predicted an increased willingness to inoculate against COVID-19? And, to what extent was the change driven by COVID-specific factors, such as personal worry about the disease and COVID-specific misinformation, and to what extent by background (non-COVID-specific) factors, such as trust in medical authorities, accurate/inaccurate information about vaccination, vaccination history, and patterns of media reliance? This panel study of more than 8,000 individuals found that trust in health authorities anchored acceptance of vaccination and that knowledge about vaccination, flu vaccination history, and patterns of media reliance played a more prominent role in shifting individuals from vaccination hesitance to acceptance than COVID-specific factors. COVID-specific conspiracy beliefs did play a role, although a lesser one. These findings underscore the need to reinforce trust in health experts, facilitate community engagement with them, and preemptively communicate the benefits and safety record of authorized vaccines. The findings suggest, as well, the need to identify and deploy messaging able to undercut health-related conspiracy beliefs when they begin circulating.

COVID-19 vaccination in India: An ethical perspective.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: COVID-19 had put world to a standstill with enormous morbidity and mortality. Vaccines' development against this provided a beacon of hope. India approved different vaccines under emergency use authorization but distribution of vaccines and vaccination of huge population was a challenging task. We attempted to review the vaccination program from an ethics perspective. METHODS: The core ethical principles of healthcare and other tenets put forth in discussion papers on addressing ethical issues in pandemic influenza planning, ethical considerations in developing a public health response to pandemic influenza and World Health Organization (WHO) Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies values framework for the allocation and prioritization of COVID-19 vaccination were used to identify the ethical concerns in the vaccination program of the country. Relevant ministry guidelines, documents, websites etc., were accessed. RESULTS: The program tried addressing many of the ethical principles laid out in various international documents. Approving indigenously produced vaccines upheld the principle of utility while prioritizing health care workers for vaccination was an example of reciprocity. However, vaccine approval without availability of trial results in public domain raised apprehensions and lacked transparency. Lack of well-defined mechanism to facilitate vaccination for socially disadvantaged groups compromises equity. CONCLUSION: Overall, the program fared well on most aspects of ethical principles, but there were few gaps which still exist. These should be taken care of as the country advances further into vaccination program to garner enhanced public trust in the scientific, regulatory and administrative authorities.

Respect for individual autonomy and a collective benefit: Arguments in favor of compulsory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among health care professionals. / Respeto por la autonomía individual y el beneficio colectivo: argumentación a favor de la vacunación obligatoria contra el SARS-CoV-2 para el personal de la salud.

With the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, a new aspect to be taken into consideration in the midst of the pandemic is vaccine refusal. Since vaccination is voluntary, it is necessary to deal with the fact that some health care team members refuse to receive it. Here I put forward different bioethical arguments: Kantian deontology and the principles of universalizability, humanity, and autonomy; Mill's utilitarianism, with selfprotection as the sole end for which humankind is authorized to interfere with its members' freedom of action; Beauchamp and Childress' principlism and the concepts of beneficence and autonomy; Varo Baena's principle of opportunity; and the principle of solidarity resulting from the ethics of human rights. The contributions of contemporary philosophers like Roberto Espósito, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Alberto Giubilini are also included. Two counterarguments are presented: nonmaleficence and counter-production. Lastly, I suggest that, since common good (in this case, public health) is the intimate and final determining factor of individual freedom and is the same for all, it is above any individual benefit.

Con la llegada de las vacunas contra el SARSCoV- 2, un nuevo aspecto a tener en cuenta en la pandemia es el rechazo a la vacunación. Como la recepción de la vacuna, es voluntaria, se plantea cómo abordar la situación de los miembros del equipo de salud que la rechazan. Se exponen argumentos bioéticos de diversas corrientes: el deontologismo kantiano y lo conceptos de universalidad, humanidad y autonomía; el utilitarismo de Mill, con la autoprotección como único fin por el cual la humanidad está habilitada para interferir con la libertad de acción de sus miembros; el principismo de Beauchamp y Childress y los conceptos de beneficencia y autonomía; el principio de oportunidad de Varo Baena; y el principio de solidaridad, derivado de la ética de los derechos humanos. Se incluyen aportes de filósofos contemporáneos como Roberto Espósito, Jean-Luc Nancy y Alberto Giubilini. Se exponen dos contrargumentos: el de no maleficencia y el de contraproducencia. Por último, se plantea que, dado que el bien común (la salud pública, en este caso) es el determinante íntimo y último de la libertad individual e igual para todos, está por encima del beneficio individual.

Is Mandatory Vaccination for COVID-19 Constitutional under Brazilian Law?

Mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 has been the object of heated debate in Brazil. This article discusses the legality and constitutionality of such a policy. First, it analyzes the laws, regulations, and Supreme Court decisions that provide for the possibility of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Subsequently, it analyzes the constitutionality of a mandatory vaccination policy through the proportionality method to address the conflict between, on one side, the right to individual autonomy, which includes the right to refuse a medical intervention, and, on the other, health policies that interfere with individual autonomy to protect the rights to life and health. The application of this method allows for the identification of key questions that need to be answered to determine the constitutionality of a mandatory vaccination program. These questions cannot be answered a priori and in the abstract because they depend on the concrete circumstances of the pandemic, on the characteristics of the vaccine(s) against COVID-19, and on how a mandatory vaccination policy might be designed and implemented by authorities.

Ethical Considerations in Chemotherapy and Vaccines in Cancer Patients in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 situation is a worldwide health emergency with strong implications in clinical oncology. In this viewpoint, we address two crucial dilemmas from the ethical dimension: (1) Is it ethical to postpone or suspend cancer treatments which offer a statistically significant benefit in quality of life and survival in cancer patients during this time of pandemic?; (2) Should we vaccinate cancer patients against COVID-19 if scientific studies have not included this subgroup of patients? Regarding the first question, the best available evidence applied to the ethical principles of Beauchamp and Childress shows that treatments (such as chemotherapy) with clinical benefit are fair and beneficial. Indeed, the suspension or delay of such treatments should be considered malefic. Regarding the second question, applying the doctrine of double-effect, we show that the potential beneficial effect of vaccines in the population with cancer (or those one that has had cancer) is much higher than the potential adverse effects of these vaccines. In addition, there is no better and less harmful known solution.