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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Parental refusal to mandatory vaccination in Chile. Ethical and legal challenges]. / Rechazo de los padres a la vacunación obligatoria en Chile. Desafíos éticos y jurídicos.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mandatory influenza vaccination for all healthcare personnel: a review on justification, implementation and effectiveness.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As healthcare-associated influenza is a serious public health concern, this review examines legal and ethical arguments supporting mandatory influenza vaccination policies for healthcare personnel, implementation issues and evidence of effectiveness. RECENT FINDINGS: Spread of influenza from healthcare personnel to patients can result in severe harm or death. Although most healthcare personnel believe that they should be vaccinated against seasonal influenza, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that only 79% of personnel were vaccinated during the 2015-2016 season. Vaccination rates were as low as 44.9% in institutions that did not promote or offer the vaccine, compared with rates of more than 90% in institutions with mandatory vaccination policies. Policies that mandate influenza vaccination for healthcare personnel have legal and ethical justifications. Implementing such policies require multipronged approaches that include education efforts, easy access to vaccines, vaccine promotion, leadership support and consistent communication emphasizing patient safety. SUMMARY: Mandatory influenza vaccination for healthcare personnel is a necessary step in protecting patients. Patients who interact with healthcare personnel are often at an elevated risk of complications from influenza. Vaccination is the best available strategy for protecting against influenza and evidence shows that institutional policies and state laws can effectively increase healthcare personnel vaccination rates, decreasing the risk of transmission in healthcare settings. There are legal and ethical precedents for institutional mandatory influenza policies and state laws, although successful implementation requires addressing both administrative and attitudinal barriers.

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.

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.

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.