Vaccine mandates for prospective versus existing employees: reply to Smith.

Employment-based vaccine mandates have worse consequences for existing than prospective employees. Prospective employees are not yet dependent on a particular employment arrangement, so they are better positioned to respond to such mandates. Yet despite this asymmetry in consequences, Smith argues that if vaccine mandates are justified for prospective employees, they are similarly justified for existing employees. This paper responds to Smith's argument. First, Smith holds that bona fide occupational requirements are actions that are necessary for the safe and effective completion of one's job. As such, they apply to existing and prospective employees alike. However, I argue that the existence of effective alternative interventions precludes vaccination from being considered a bona fide occupational requirement under current circumstances. Second, Smith holds that if a requirement is justified for prospective employees, it is justified for existing employees, despite the asymmetry in consequences. However, I argue that since vaccination is not a bona fide requirement, the asymmetry in the harms of mandates experienced by prospective versus existing employees entails an asymmetry in the justification required to mandate vaccination for each group. As such, vaccination can be considered a requirement for prospective employees while not being required for existing employees.

Ladders and stairs: how the intervention ladder focuses blame on individuals and obscures systemic failings and interventions.

Introduced in 2007 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the intervention ladder has become an influential tool in bioethics and public health policy for weighing the justification for interventions and for weighing considerations of intrusiveness and proportionality. However, while such considerations are critical, in its focus on these factors, the ladder overemphasises the role of personal responsibility and the importance of individual behaviour change in public health interventions. Through a study of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine mandates among healthcare workers, this paper investigates how the ladder obscures systemic factors such as the social determinants of health. In overlooking these factors, potentially effective interventions are left off the table and the intervention ladder serves to divert attention away from key issues in public health. This paper, therefore, proposes a replacement for the intervention ladder-the intervention stairway. By broadening the intervention ladder to include systemic factors, the stairway ensures relevant interventions are not neglected merely due to the framing of the issue. Moreover, it more accurately captures factors influencing individual health as well as allocations of responsibility for improving these factors.

Are COVID-19 vaccination mandates for healthcare workers effective? A systematic review of the impact of mandates on increasing vaccination, alleviating staff shortages and decreasing staff illness.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is a cornerstone in the global effort to combat the pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs), being at the forefront of the pandemic response, have been the focus of vaccine mandate policies. This review aims to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 vaccine mandates among HCWs, a critical step in understanding the broader implications of such policies in healthcare settings. OBJECTIVE: The review seeks to synthesize available literature to contribute to greater understanding of the outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs including vaccine uptake, infection rates, and staffing. METHODS: A systematic search of relevant literature published from March 2020 to September 2023 was conducted. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed for quality assessment of the included articles. A total of 4,779 publications were identified, with 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for the review. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyze these studies. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs were broadly successful in increasing vaccine uptake in most settings. Although the penalties imposed on unvaccinated HCWs did not lead to major disruption of health services, less well-resourced areas may have been more impacted. Furthermore, there is insufficient literature on the impact of the vaccine mandate on reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs have significant implications for public health policy and healthcare management. The findings underscore the need for tailored approaches in mandate policies, considering the specific contexts of healthcare settings and the diverse populations of HCWs. While mandates have shown potential in increasing vaccine uptake with minimal impacts to staffing, more work is needed to investigate the impacts of mandates across various contexts. In addition to these impacts, future research should focus on long-term effects and implications on broader public health strategies.