An Ethical Anaylsis of the Arguments Both For and Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Since the development of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccine for the prevention of serious disease and death associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, health care workers have been expected to comply with mandatory immunization requirements or face potential termination of employment and censure by their state medical boards. Although most accepted this mandate, there have been several who have felt this was an unnecessary intrusion and violation of their right to choose their own health care mitigation strategies, or an infringement on their autonomy and other civil liberties. Others have argued that being a health care professional places your duties above your own self-interests, so-called fiduciary duties. As a result of these duties, there is an expected obligation to do the best action to achieve the "most good" for society. A so-called "utilitarian argument." DISCUSSION: We explore arguments both for and against these mandatory vaccine requirements and conclude using duty- and consequence-based moral reasoning to weigh the merits of each. CONCLUSIONS: Although arguments for and against vaccine mandates are compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's personal liberties.

Call of Duty - What are Physicians' Obligations During Crises?

BACKGROUND: Society allows physicians the privilege and responsibility of caring for patients. Those responsibilities demand that their knowledge and technical expertise meet standards defined and policed by their colleagues, through medical societies or governmental entities. However, the fiduciary duty that patients' interests are held above those of the physicians' is an ethical precept that is tested when society is under threat. DISCUSSION: Disasters that stress society are a constant and can present themselves in a myriad of ways to include medical, meteorological, or political. Minimizing the potential damage to the quality and quantity of life of the population is dependent upon public safety personnel and health care professionals who may put their health and safety in harm's way to care for patients. These acts may be taken for granted or assumed to be part of the professional obligations of physicians and other health care workers who work at the bedside. The obligations of physicians to their patients and society may differ from those not in the medical field, and the level of risk deemed acceptable by the physician and by society should be clearly delineated. CONCLUSION: Despite the conflict between normative and descriptive ethics, in times of disaster, physicians must respond to the call of duty. This duty is contingent on the responsibility being shared with governmental agencies and health care facilities, to mitigate the risks borne by those who answer the call.