The ethics of firing unvaccinated employees.

Some organisations make vaccination a condition of employment. This means prospective employees must demonstrate they have been vaccinated (eg, against measles) to be hired. But it also means organisations must decide whether existing employees should be expected to meet newly introduced vaccination conditions (eg, against COVID-19). Unlike prospective employees who will not be hired if they do not meet vaccination conditions, existing employees who fail to meet new vaccination conditions risk being fired The latter seems worse than the former. Hence, objections to vaccination mandates commonly centre on the harms that will be visited on existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated. However, because this objection does not necessarily entail the claim that vaccination is unnecessary for the effective and safe performance of certain jobs, those making this objection should have less of an objection, or no objection at all (at least on these grounds), to introducing vaccination requirements in some cases for prospective employees. Yet, in this paper, I shall argue that if one has reason to believe vaccination requirements can be justified for prospective employees, one should also believe they are justified for existing employees despite any asymmetry in consequences experienced by the two groups. As a consequence, common objections made against vaccination mandates grounded solely in the harms that may be experienced by existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated should be considered unpersuasive.

"She was finally mine": the moral experience of families in the context of trisomy 13 and 18- a scoping review with thematic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The value of a short life characterized by disability has been hotly debated in the literature on fetal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to summarize the available empirical literature on the experiences of families in the context of trisomy 13 and 18 (T13/18) with subsequent thematic analysis of the 17 included articles. FINDINGS: Themes constructed include (1) Pride as Resistance, (2) Negotiating Normalcy and (3) The Significance of Time. INTERPRETATION: Our thematic analysis was guided by the moral experience framework conceived by Hunt and Carnevale (2011) in association with the VOICE (Views On Interdisciplinary Childhood Ethics) collaborative research group. RELEVANCE: This article will be of interest and value to healthcare professionals and bioethicists who support families navigating the medically and ethically complex landscape of T13/18.

Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability.

The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.

Institutional trust is a distinct construct related to vaccine hesitancy and refusal.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is driven by a heterogeneous and changing set of psychological, social and historical phenomena, requiring multidisciplinary approaches to its study and intervention. Past research has brought to light instances of both interpersonal and institutional trust playing an important role in vaccine uptake. However, no comprehensive study to date has specifically assessed the relative importance of these two categories of trust as they relate to vaccine behaviors and attitudes. METHODS: In this paper, we examine the relationship between interpersonal and institutional trust and four measures related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and one measure related to general vaccine hesitancy. We hypothesize that, across measures, individuals with vaccine hesitant attitudes and behaviors have lower trust-especially in institutions-than those who are not hesitant. We test this hypothesis in a sample of 1541 Canadians. RESULTS: A deficit in both interpersonal and institutional trust was associated with higher levels of vaccine hesitant attitudes and behaviors. However, institutional trust was significantly lower than interpersonal trust in those with high hesitancy scores, suggesting that the two types of trust can be thought of as distinct constructs in the context of vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we suggest that diminished institutional trust plays a crucial role in vaccine hesitancy. We propose that this may contribute to a tendency to instead place trust in interpersonally propagated belief systems, which may be more strongly misaligned with mainstream evidence and thus support vaccine hesitancy attitudes. We offer strategies rooted in these observations for creating public health messages designed to enhance vaccine uptake.

Artificial intelligence and the work-health interface: A research agenda for a technologically transforming world of work.

The labor market is undergoing a rapid artificial intelligence (AI) revolution. There is currently limited empirical scholarship that focuses on how AI adoption affects employment opportunities and work environments in ways that shape worker health, safety, well-being and equity. In this article, we present an agenda to guide research examining the implications of AI on the intersection between work and health. To build the agenda, a full day meeting was organized and attended by 50 participants including researchers from diverse disciplines and applied stakeholders. Facilitated meeting discussions aimed to set research priorities related to workplace AI applications and its impact on the health of workers, including critical research questions, methodological approaches, data needs, and resource requirements. Discussions also aimed to identify groups of workers and working contexts that may benefit from AI adoption as well as those that may be disadvantaged by AI. Discussions were synthesized into four research agenda areas: (1) examining the impact of stronger AI on human workers; (2) advancing responsible and healthy AI; (3) informing AI policy for worker health, safety, well-being, and equitable employment; and (4) understanding and addressing worker and employer knowledge needs regarding AI applications. The agenda provides a roadmap for researchers to build a critical evidence base on the impact of AI on workers and workplaces, and will ensure that worker health, safety, well-being, and equity are at the forefront of workplace AI system design and adoption.

Why we should not 'just use age' for COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation.

Older age is one of the greatest risk factors for severe outcomes from COVID-19. If we believe it is important to use limited supplies of COVID-19 vaccines to protect the most vulnerable and prevent deaths, then available doses should be allocated with significant priority to older adults. Yet, we should resist the conclusion that age should be the sole criterion for COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation or that no younger populations (eg, those under the age of 60) should be prioritised until all older adults have been vaccinated. This article examines arguments that are commonly presented to abandon 'complex' vaccine prioritisation schemes in favour of 'just using age' (eg, prioritising those 80 years of age and older and then decreasing in a 5-year age bands until the entire population has had the opportunity to be vaccinated), and articulates the ethical reasons why these arguments are not persuasive.

A framework for critical care triage during a major surge in critical illness.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions experienced surges in demand for critical care that strained or overwhelmed their healthcare system's ability to respond. A major surge necessitates a deviation from usual practices, including difficult decisions about how to allocate critical care resources. We present a framework to guide these decisions in the hope of saving the most lives as ethically as possible, while concurrently respecting, protecting, and fulfilling legal and human rights obligations. It was developed in Ontario in 2020-2021 through an iterative consultation process with diverse participants, but was adopted in other jurisdictions with some modifications. The framework features three levels of triage depending on the degree of the surge, and a system for prioritizing patients based on their short-term mortality risk following the onset of critical illness. It also includes processes aimed at promoting consistency and fairness across a region where many hospitals are expected to apply the same framework. No triage framework should ever be considered "final," and there is a need for further research to examine ethical issues related to critical care triage and to increase the extent and quality of evidence to inform critical care triage.

RéSUMé: Pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, de nombreuses régions ont connu une augmentation de la demande de soins intensifs qui a mis à rude épreuve ou dépassé la capacité de réponse du système de santé existant. Lors de toute augmentation importante de cette demande, un écart par rapport aux pratiques habituelles est nécessaire, y compris la prise de décisions difficiles sur la façon d'allouer les ressources en soins intensifs. Nous présentons un algorithme pour guider ces décisions dans l'espoir de sauver le plus de vies possibles et ce, de la manière la plus éthique possible, tout en respectant, en protégeant et en remplissant les obligations légales et en matière de droits de l'homme. Cet algorithme a été élaboré en Ontario en 2020-2021 dans le cadre d'un processus de consultation itératif avec divers participants, mais a été adopté dans d'autres juridictions avec quelques modifications. L'algorithme comprend trois niveaux de triage en fonction du degré d'augmentation de la demande, ainsi qu'un système permettant de prioriser les patients en fonction de leur risque de mortalité à court terme après l'apparition d'une maladie grave. Il comporte également des processus visant à promouvoir l'uniformité et l'équité dans une région où de nombreux hôpitaux vont appliquer le même algorithme. Aucun algorithme de triage ne devrait jamais être considéré comme « définitif ¼, et il est nécessaire d'approfondir les recherches pour examiner les questions éthiques liées au triage aux soins intensifs et accroître l'étendue et la qualité des données probantes afin d'éclairer le triage aux soins intensifs.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Publication Ethics During Public Health Emergencies Such as the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Public health emergencies require real-time, accurate information to guide effective responses. Rapid publication of information can, therefore, advance both the scientific validity and the social value of research conducted in these contexts. Consequently, medical journals place a high priority on rapidly publishing reports on these emergencies, which the media often report on to the public. Today, the focus is on the rapid publication of research related to the COVID-19 outbreak. Tomorrow, it might be an influenza pandemic or a crisis related to a vaping-related illness. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 14, 2020: e1-e2. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305686).

Political legitimacy and research ethics.

In democratic theory, "legitimacy" refers to the set of conditions that must be in place in order for the claims to authority of somebody to be deemed appropriate, and for their claims to compliance to be warranted. Though criteria of legitimacy have been elaborated in the context of democratic states, there is no reason for them not to be drawn up, with appropriate amendments, for other kinds of authority structures. This paper examines the claims to authority made over researchers by international bodies governing research ethics, who exercise their authority by the research ethics guidelines they produce (including recent revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS Guidelines). We argue that discussions of such bodies and sets of guidelines often elide questions of justification and questions of legitimacy, and that the grounds that might allow us to mount a strong case for the latter are at present sorely underdeveloped.

Systems thinking and ethics in public health: a necessary and mutually beneficial partnership.

Systems thinking has emerged as a means of conceptualizing and addressing complex public health problems, thereby challenging more commonplace understanding of problems and corresponding solutions as straightforward explanations of cause and effect. Systems thinking tries to address the complexity of problems through qualitative and quantitative modeling based on a variety of systems theories, each with their own assumptions and, more importantly, implicit and unexamined values. To date, however, there has been little engagement between systems scientists and those working in bioethics and public health ethics. The goal of this paper is to begin to consider what it might mean to combine systems thinking with public health ethics to solve public health challenges. We argue that there is a role for ethics in systems thinking in public health as a means of elucidating implicit assumptions and facilitating ethics debate and dialogue with key stakeholders.

Ethics for pandemics beyond influenza: Ebola, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and anticipating future ethical challenges in pandemic preparedness and response.

The unprecedented outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa has raised several novel ethical issues for global outbreak preparedness. It has also illustrated that familiar ethical issues in infectious disease management endure despite considerable efforts to understand and mitigate such issues in the wake of past outbreaks. To improve future global outbreak preparedness and response, we must examine these shortcomings and reflect upon the current state of ethical preparedness. To this end, we focus our efforts in this article on the examination of one substantial area: ethical guidance in pandemic plans. We argue that, due in part to their focus on considerations arising specifically in relation to pandemics of influenza origin, pandemic plans and their existing ethical guidance are ill-equipped to anticipate and facilitate the navigation of unique ethical challenges that may arise in other infectious disease pandemics. We proceed by outlining three reasons why this is so, and situate our analysis in the context of the EVD outbreak and the threat posed by drug-resistant tuberculosis: (1) different infectious diseases have distinct characteristics that challenge anticipated or existing modes of pandemic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery, (2) clear, transparent, context-specific ethical reasoning and justification within current influenza pandemic plans are lacking, and (3) current plans neglect the context of how other significant pandemics may manifest. We conclude the article with several options for reflecting upon and ultimately addressing ethical issues that may emerge with different infectious disease pandemics.

Cause for coercion: cause for concern?

In his 2000 book, From Chaos to Coercion: Detention and the Control of Tuberculosis, Richard Coker makes a number of important observations and arguments regarding the use of coercive public health measures in response to infectious disease threats. In particular, Coker argues that we have a tendency to neglect public health threats and then demand immediate action, which can leave policymakers with fewer effective options and may require (or may be perceived as requiring) more aggressive, coercive measures to achieve public health goals. While Coker makes a convincing case as to why we should find it ethically problematic when governments find themselves in this position and resort to coercion, left outstanding is the question of whether this should preclude governments and health authorities from using coercion if and when they do find themselves in this position. In this paper, I argue that, while we should consider it ethically objectionable when governments resort to coercion because they have neglected a public health threat, its causes, and other possible responses to that threat, this should not then necessarily rule out the use of coercion in such circumstances; that there are ethically objectionable antecedents for why coercion is being considered should not necessarily or automatically cause us to think coercion in such cases cannot be justified. I address an objection to this argument and draw several conclusions about how governments' use of coercion in public health should be evaluated.

Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international study.

Research ethics review committees (ERCs) worldwide faced daunting challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a need to balance rapid turnaround with rigorous evaluation of high-risk research protocols in the context of considerable uncertainty. This study explored the experiences and performance of ERCs during the pandemic. We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional, global online survey of chairs (or their delegates) of ERCs who were involved in the review of COVID-19-related research protocols after March 2020. The survey ran from October 2022 to February 2023 and consisted of 50 items, with opportunities for descriptive responses to open-ended questions. Two hundred and three participants [130 from high-income countries (HICs) and 73 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] completed our survey. Respondents came from diverse entities and organizations from 48 countries (19 HICs and 29 LMICs) in all World Health Organization regions. Responses show little of the increased global funding for COVID-19 research was allotted to the operation of ERCs. Few ERCs had pre-existing internal policies to address operation during public health emergencies, but almost half used existing guidelines. Most ERCs modified existing procedures or designed and implemented new ones but had not evaluated the success of these changes. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed permanently implementing several of them. Few ERCs added new members but non-member experts were consulted; quorum was generally achieved. Collaboration among ERCs was infrequent, but reviews conducted by external ERCs were recognized and validated. Review volume increased during the pandemic, with COVID-19-related studies being prioritized. Most protocol reviews were reported as taking less than three weeks. One-third of respondents reported external pressure on their ERCs from different stakeholders to approve or reject specific COVID-19-related protocols. ERC members faced significant challenges to keep their committees functioning during the pandemic. Our findings can inform ERC approaches towards future public health emergencies. To our knowledge, this is the first international, COVID-19-related study of its kind.