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).

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 / Respect for individual autonomy and a collective benefit: Arguments in favor of compulsory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among health care professionals

Con la llegada de las vacunas contra el SARS-CoV-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

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 self-protection 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 counter-arguments 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.

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.

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.

Considerations for fair prioritization of COVID-19 vaccine and its mandate among healthcare personnel.

With current COVID-19 vaccine demand outweighing supply and the emergency authorization/rollout of three novel vaccines in the United States, discussions continue regarding fair prioritization among various groups for this scarce resource. The US federal government's recommended vaccination schedule, meant to assist states with vaccine allocation, demonstrates fair ethical considerations; however, difficulties remain comparing various groups to determine fair vaccine access and distribution. Although strides have been taken to analyze risks versus benefits of early vaccination across certain high-risk populations, prioritizing vulnerable populations versus essential workers remains challenging for multiple reasons. Similarly, as COVID-19 vaccine allocation and distribution continues in the US and in other countries, topics that require continued consideration include sub-prioritization among currently prioritized groups, prioritization among vulnerable groups disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, like ethnic minorities, and holistic comparisons between groups who might receive various and disparate benefits from vaccination. Although all current COVID-19 vaccines are emergency authorization use only and a vaccine mandate would be considered only once these vaccines are licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration, future vaccination policies require time and deliberation. Similarly, given current vaccine hesitancy, mandatory vaccination of certain groups, like healthcare personnel, may need to be considered when these vaccines are licensed, especially if voluntary vaccination proves insufficient. Continued discussions regarding risks versus benefits of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and the unique role of healthcare personnel in providing a safe healthcare environment could lead to better deliberation regarding potential policies. This commentary aims to address both questions of fair prioritization and sub-prioritization of various groups, as well as ethical considerations for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare personnel.

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.

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.

Local deliberative approach to the bioethical controversies: An opportunity for the proper implementation of neonatal screening / [Enfoque local deliberativo de las controversias bioéticas: una oportunidad para la adecuada implementación de la tamización neonatal].

Introduction: The controversial characteristics of neonatal screening influenced by bioethical considerations make its implementation complex. Colombia is not an exception in this sense and local circumstances complicate the panorama. Objective: To establish how bioethical controversies on neonatal screening are approached at a local level as a basis for deliberating on the must-be of this activity in Colombia. Materials and methods: A survey immersed in an interpretative investigation with descriptive and deliberative components of analysis was applied to approach the values exposed by officials of the Colombian Instituto Nacional de Salud. Results: The compulsory offer of screening by the nation, regardless of its opportunity cost and the consent for the use in research of results and residual samples, were not controversial, but, in contrast, the type of information and the consent to authorize screening did arise controversy. The more experienced officials preferred mandatory screening (17.7 vs. 11.79 years on average, p=0.007). Surprisingly, despite the risk of discrimination, keeping the neonate as the purpose, there was agreement on giving all the information to parents and medical records. Another controversial aspect was the follow-up of cases without hiding their identification where officials with more experience in bioethical aspects preferred the use of codes (4.5 vs. 1.26 years on average, p=0.009). In this context, strategies such as informed dissent, specialized advice or public health programs that appreciate diversity would allow to rescue even seemingly opposite values. Conclusion: A local approach regarding what ought to be in neonatal screening based on a deliberative bioethical perspective allowed to present an implementation proposal for this activity

Introducción. Las características controversiales de la tamización neonatal influenciadas por consideraciones bioéticas hacen compleja su implementación. Colombia no es ajena a esta situación y las circunstancias locales complican el panorama. Objetivo. Determinar cómo se abordan en el contexto local las controversias bioéticas en torno a la tamización neonatal como fundamento de las deliberaciones sobre el deber ser de esta actividad en Colombia. Materiales y métodos. Se aplicó una encuesta en el marco de un estudio interpretativo con dos componentes de análisis, uno descriptivo y otro deliberativo, en torno a los valores expuestos por funcionarios del Instituto Nacional de Salud. Resultados. La oferta obligatoria de la tamización por parte de la nación, independientemente del costo de oportunidad y el consentimiento para el uso de sus resultados y de las muestras residuales en la investigación, no suscitaron controversias, pero sí el tipo de información y la autorización para hacer la tamización. Los funcionarios con mayor experiencia expresaron su preferencia por una tamización obligatoria (17,7 Vs. 11,79 años en promedio; p=0,007). Sorpresivamente, a pesar del riesgo de discriminación, teniendo como fin el neonato, hubo acuerdo en entregar toda la información a padres e historia clínica. Otro aspecto controversial fue la identificación de los pacientes en el seguimiento, frente a lo cual los funcionarios de mayor experiencia en aspectos bioéticos prefirieron el uso de códigos (4,5 Vs. 1,26 años en promedio; p=0,009). En este contexto, estrategias como el disentimiento informado, el asesoramiento especializado o los programas de salud pública que aprecien la diversidad permitirían rescatar valores, incluso aquellos aparentemente opuestos. Conclusión. La aproximación local al deber ser de la tamización neonatal desde una perspectiva bioética deliberativa permitió ajustar una propuesta para su implementación.

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.

When Are Vaccine Mandates Appropriate?

Vaccine refusal is a serious public health problem, especially in the context of diseases with potential to spark global pandemics, such as Ebola virus disease in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This article examines whether and when compelling vaccination through mandates and criminalization, for example, are appropriate. It argues that some legal approaches are ethical when they preserve social stability, trust in government, therapeutic research opportunities, or when they diminish disease severity.

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

Resumen: Este artículo se presenta como una reflexión ética y jurídica acerca de la tendencia actual de los pa dres a rechazar la vacunación de sus hijos en un régimen jurídico que establece la obligatoriedad de determinadas vacunas. Se analizan los principales argumentos que los padres usan para rechazar las vacunaciones obligatorias, y, en concreto: el temor a los efectos negativos que la vacunación pueda provocar en el menor; la violación del "derecho a la autonomía"; las creencias religiosas o pseudo- filosóficas; la resistencia a la intervención del Estado en asuntos personales o familiares. De esto, nace un necesario análisis ético sobre la vacunación infantil. Finalmente, se discute la responsabilidad de los padres y del Estado (autoridad sanitaria) en el cuidado de los menores de edad. La vacunación es un beneficio tanto para el inoculado como para la comunidad, la mejor política preventiva. Al mismo tiempo, se configura como un caso complejo que demanda un debate profundo, cuyo fin debe ser el tránsito desde un aparente conflicto entre los padres y el Estado, a una convergencia por el cuidado de los menores de edad. En otros términos, se recalca el hecho de que los padres, más allá del cum plimiento de un deber normativo heterogéneo, deben actuar motivados por la adhesión voluntaria al bien del hijo y de la comunidad.

Abstract: 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.