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.

Immune to addiction: the ethical dimensions of vaccines against substance abuse.

Promising advances have been made in recent years for a unique class of immunotherapies that use vaccination to combat substance-use disorders. Although such vaccines are potentially useful for addictions, they raise a variety of ethical and social questions.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

In the Wake of a Pandemic: Revisiting School Approaches to Nonmedical Exemptions to Mandatory Vaccination in the US.

Mandatory school vaccination policies with exclusion of unvaccinated students can be a powerful tool in ensuring high vaccination rates. Some parents may object to mandatory vaccination policies, claiming exemptions based on medical, religious, or philosophical reasons. Individual schools, school systems, or local or regional governments have different policies with respect to whether, and what kind of, exemptions may be allowed. In the setting of the current pandemic, questions regarding the acceptability of exemptions have resurfaced, as schools and local governments struggle with how to safely return children to school. Anticipating that school attendance will be facilitated by the development of a vaccine, school systems will face decisions about whether to mandate vaccination and whether to permit exemptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics promulgates policy favoring the elimination of nonmedical exemptions generally in schools. This discussion considers whether schools should eliminate nonmedical exemptions to vaccination as proposed in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy, ultimately concluding that broad elimination of exemptions is not justified and advocating a more nuanced approach that encourages school attendance while promoting vaccination and broader public health goals.

Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety.

Challenges arise when treatment to improve maternal health brings the possibility of risk to fetal health. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is the most recent, but hardly the only, example. Because pregnant patients are often specifically excluded from trials of new therapies, this is often the dilemma that patients and providers face when considering new treatments. In this study, we used the COVID-19 vaccine as an exemplar to question the broader issue of how society, in general, and obstetricians, in particular, should balance obligations to pregnant women's right of access to new therapeutic agents with the physician's desire to protect the fetus from potential risks. We will argue that in almost all circumstances (with few exceptions, as will also be discussed), maternal benefit and respect for autonomy create the uncertainty that absent safety data bring. Consequently, if pregnant women choose to try new interventions and treatments, such as the COVID-19 vaccination, they should be offered those new regimens and their decision supported. In addition, we will argue that the right solution to avoid the dilemma of absent data is to include pregnant individuals in clinical trials studying new treatments, drugs, and other therapies. We will also discuss the basis for our opinion, which are mainstream obstetrical ethics, precedents in law (supreme court ruling that forbids companies to exclude women from jobs that might pose a risk to the fetus), and historic events (thalidomide). The ethical framework includes the supposition that sacrifice to improve fetal outcome is a virtue and not a mandate. Denying a pregnant patient treatment because of threats to their life can create absurd and paradoxical consequences. Either requiring abortion or premature delivery before proceeding with treatments to optimize maternal health, or risking a patient's own life and ability to parent a child by delaying treatment brings clear and significant risks to fetal and/or neonatal outcomes. With rare exceptions, properly and ethically balancing such consequential actions cannot be undertaken without considering the values and goals of the pregnant patient. Therefore, active participation of both the pregnant patient and their physician in shared decision making is needed.

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.

Is there a role for childhood vaccination against COVID-19?

Tremendous efforts are undertaken to quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines that protect vulnerable individuals from severe disease and thereby limit the health and socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic. Potential candidates are tested in adult populations, and questions arise of whether COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented in children. Compared to adults, the incidence and disease severity of COVID-19 are low in children, and despite their infectiveness, their role in disease propagation is limited. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines will need to have fully demonstrated safety and efficacy in preventing not only complications but transmission to justify childhood vaccination. This work summarizes currently tested vaccine platforms and debates practical and ethical considerations for their potential use in children. It also discusses the already deleterious effect of the pandemic on routine childhood vaccine coverage, calling for action to limit the risks for a rise in vaccine-preventable diseases.

A reasoned approach towards administering COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women.

There are over 50 SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines undergoing Phase II and III clinical trials. Several vaccines have been approved by regulatory authorities and rolled out for use in different countries. Due to concerns of potential teratogenicity or adverse effect on maternal physiology, pregnancy has been a specific exclusion criterion for most vaccine trials with only two trials not excluding pregnant women. Thus, other than limited animal studies, gradually emerging development and reproductive toxicity data, and observational data from vaccine registries, there is a paucity of reliable information to guide recommendations for the safe vaccination of pregnant women. Pregnancy is a risk factor for severe COVID-19, especially in women with comorbidities, resulting in increased rates of preterm birth and maternal morbidity. We discuss the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, their mechanisms of action, efficacy, safety profile and possible benefits to the maternal-fetal dyad to create a rational approach towards maternal vaccination while anticipating and mitigating vaccine-related complications. Pregnant women with high exposure risks or co-morbidities predisposing to severe COVID-19 infection should be prioritised for vaccination. Those with risk factors for adverse effects should be counselled accordingly. It is essential to support patient autonomy by shared decision-making involving a risk-benefit discussion with the pregnant woman.

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.

Voluntary COVID-19 vaccination of children: a social responsibility.

Nearly 400 million adults have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Children have been excluded from the vaccination programmes owing to their lower vulnerability to COVID-19 and to the special protections that apply to children's exposure to new biological products. WHO guidelines and national laws focus on medical safety in the process of vaccine approval, and on national security in the process of emergency authorisation. Because children suffer much from social distancing, it is argued that the harms from containment measures should be factored in a broader perspective on the good of the child. Considering the available knowledge on the disease, vaccine, and coping strategies, the decision about vaccine access to children is a public responsibility. The ultimate choice is a matter of paediatric informed consent. Moreover, jurisdictions that permit non-participation in established childhood vaccination programmes should also permit choice of vaccines outside of the approved programmes. Even if vaccine supply is too short to cover the paediatric population, the a priori exclusion of children is unjust. It may also exacerbate local and global inequalities. The second part of the paper delineates a prudent and ethical scheme for gradual incorporation of minors in vaccination programmes that includes a rigorous postvaccination monitoring. This is a theoretical paper in ethics that uses the Pfizer vaccine as a stock example, without discussing possible differences among existing vaccines. The key purpose is reflection on the good of the child in emergencies and vaccine policymaking.

Eating meat and not vaccinating: In defense of the analogy.

The devastating impact of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic is prompting renewed scrutiny of practices that heighten the risk of infectious disease. One such practice is refusing available vaccines known to be effective at preventing dangerous communicable diseases. For reasons of preventing individual harm, avoiding complicity in collective harm, and fairness, there is a growing consensus among ethicists that individuals have a duty to get vaccinated. I argue that these same grounds establish an analogous duty to avoid buying and eating most meat sold today, based solely on a concern for human welfare. Meat consumption is a leading driver of infectious disease. Wildlife sales at wet markets, bushmeat hunting, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are all exceptionally risky activities that facilitate disease spread and impose immense harms on human populations. If there is a moral duty to vaccinate, we also should recognize a moral duty to avoid most meat. The paper concludes by considering the implications of this duty for policy.

Should the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine be mandatory for nurses? An ethical debate.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the UK, as well as many other countries around the world, affecting all aspects of society. Nurses and other health and care professionals are a group particularly exposed to the virus through their work. Evidence suggests that vaccines form the most promising strategy for fighting this pandemic. Should vaccination against be mandatory for nurses and other health professionals? This article explores this question using an ethical framework.

Mandatory vaccination: a joint statement of the Ethics and Vaccination working groups of the European Academy of Paediatrics.

Vaccinating children is amongst the most cost-effective interventions for reducing children's morbidity and mortality. Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children despite having been informed about the evidence on safety and efficacy of vaccines may seriously jeopardise the health of both their own children and others. Contemporary ethical thinking about the limits of parental decision-making over their children's healthcare treatment often considers the zone of parental discretion. However, with vaccination this is slightly less direct as the benefits are not only accumulated by an individual child but also by children as a population. Forcing parents is of course not the only solution to counteracting the fear of vaccines. Health authorities should certainly fund research and deploy resources on combatting vaccine disinformation.Conclusion: It would be preferable to achieve high rates of vaccination coverage by educating both parents and physicians without adopting any legislation for mandatory vaccination. However, in countries where vaccination uptake is low and/or outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases occur, the implementation of mandatory vaccination will most probably save children's lives. EAP calls for action to make all scheduled childhood vaccinations a matter of fact for all European children.

The end of religious exemptions from immunisation requirements?

The purpose of this paper is to propose a middle ground in the debate over religious exemptions from measles vaccination requirements. It attempts to strike a balance between public health concerns on the one hand and religious objections on the other that avoids two equally serious errors: (1) making religious liberty an absolute and (2) disregarding religious beliefs altogether. Some think that the issue is straightforward: science has spoken and the benefits to public health outweigh any other concerns. The safety of the community, they say, demands that everybody be vaccinated so that measles outbreaks can be prevented, but such voices often ignore the freedom of religion, which is a mistake. Using Martha Nussbaum's work on religious liberty, this paper claims that the exemptions should be preserved if a certain level of vaccination rates can be maintained.

Pox Parties for Grannies? Chickenpox, Exogenous Boosting, and Harmful Injustices.

Some societies tolerate or encourage high levels of chickenpox infection among children to reduce rates of shingles among older adults. This tradeoff is unethical. The varicella zoster virus (VZV) causes both chickenpox and shingles. After people recover from chickenpox, VZV remains in their nerve cells. If their immune systems become unable to suppress the virus, they develop shingles. According to the Exogenous Boosting Hypothesis (EBH), a person's ability to keep VZV suppressed can be 'boosted' through exposure to active chickenpox infections. We argue that even if this hypothesis were true, immunization policies that discourage routine childhood varicella vaccination in order to prevent shingles for other people are unethical. Such policies harm children and treat them as mere means for the benefit of others, and are inconsistent with how parents should treat their children and physicians should treat their patients. These policies also seem incompatible with institutional transparency.