The 'Ethical' COVID-19 Vaccine is the One that Preserves Lives: Religious and Moral Beliefs on the COVID-19 Vaccine.

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2021-07-19 eCollection Date: 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1093/phe/phab018
Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva, Udo Schuklenk, Julian Savulescu
{"title":"The 'Ethical' COVID-19 Vaccine is the One that Preserves Lives: Religious and Moral Beliefs on the COVID-19 Vaccine.","authors":"Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva, Udo Schuklenk, Julian Savulescu","doi":"10.1093/phe/phab018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although the COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health and economic emergency, and although effective vaccines are the best weapon we have against it, there are groups and individuals who oppose certain kinds of vaccines because of personal moral or religious reasons. The most widely discussed case has been that of certain religious groups that oppose research on COVID-19 vaccines that use cell lines linked to abortions and that object to receiving those vaccine because of their moral opposition to abortion. However, moral opposition to COVID-19 vaccine research can be based on other considerations, both secular and religious. We argue that religious or personal moral objections to vaccine research are unethical and irresponsible, and in an important sense often irrational. They are unethical because of the risk of causing serious harm to other people for no valid reason; irresponsible because they run counter to individual and collective responsibilities to contribute to important public health goals; and in the case of certain kinds of religious opposition, they might be irrational because they are internally inconsistent. All in all, our argument translates into the rather uncontroversial claim that we should prioritize people's lives over religious freedom in vaccine research and vaccination roll out.</p>","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":"14 3","pages":"242-255"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344725/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phab018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health and economic emergency, and although effective vaccines are the best weapon we have against it, there are groups and individuals who oppose certain kinds of vaccines because of personal moral or religious reasons. The most widely discussed case has been that of certain religious groups that oppose research on COVID-19 vaccines that use cell lines linked to abortions and that object to receiving those vaccine because of their moral opposition to abortion. However, moral opposition to COVID-19 vaccine research can be based on other considerations, both secular and religious. We argue that religious or personal moral objections to vaccine research are unethical and irresponsible, and in an important sense often irrational. They are unethical because of the risk of causing serious harm to other people for no valid reason; irresponsible because they run counter to individual and collective responsibilities to contribute to important public health goals; and in the case of certain kinds of religious opposition, they might be irrational because they are internally inconsistent. All in all, our argument translates into the rather uncontroversial claim that we should prioritize people's lives over religious freedom in vaccine research and vaccination roll out.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新冠肺炎“伦理”疫苗是拯救生命的疫苗:新冠肺炎疫苗的宗教和道德信仰。
尽管新冠肺炎大流行是一场严重的公共卫生和经济紧急事件,尽管有效的疫苗是我们对抗它的最佳武器,但仍有一些团体和个人出于个人道德或宗教原因反对某些疫苗。讨论最广泛的案例是某些宗教团体的案例,他们反对研究使用与堕胎有关的细胞系的新冠肺炎疫苗,并因道德上反对堕胎而反对接种这些疫苗。然而,道德上反对新冠肺炎疫苗研究可能基于世俗和宗教的其他考虑。我们认为,对疫苗研究的宗教或个人道德反对是不道德和不负责任的,在重要意义上往往是不合理的。他们是不道德的,因为他们有可能在没有正当理由的情况下对他人造成严重伤害;不负责任,因为它们违背了为重要公共卫生目标做出贡献的个人和集体责任;在某些宗教对立的情况下,它们可能是不合理的,因为它们在内部是不一致的。总的来说,我们的论点转化为一个毫无争议的主张,即在疫苗研究和疫苗推广中,我们应该将人民的生命置于宗教自由之上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.
期刊最新文献
From Self-Management to Shared-Management: A Relational Approach for Equitable Chronic Care The Application of Australian Rights Protections to the Use of Hepatitis C Notification Data to Engage People ‘Lost to Follow Up’ Time to Treat the Climate and Nature Crisis as One Indivisible Global Health Emergency. Psychedelics in PERIL: The Commercial Determinants of Health, Financial Entanglements and Population Health Ethics The Liberalism of Fear and Public Health Ethics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1