The Equitability of Universal Vaccine Mandates – A Bioethical Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine

IF 0.5 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS South African Journal of Bioethics and Law Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.58177/ajb230004
Florence Akumiah, Joseph Yaria
{"title":"The Equitability of Universal Vaccine Mandates – A Bioethical Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine","authors":"Florence Akumiah, Joseph Yaria","doi":"10.58177/ajb230004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In public health emergencies that warrant mass vaccination, vaccine mandates are sometimes imposed. There is historical evidence of the effectiveness of vaccination mandates, but varying strategies in policy implementation. The COVID-19 vaccine mandate presents an ethical imbroglio that poses these bioethical questions, “Is there ethical justification for a vaccine mandate?”, and “Whose responsibility is it to ensure the equitability of a vaccine mandate in a pandemic?” Using ethical principles and theories, this paper focuses on the health equity of vaccine mandates, considering both the global and local implications. Vaccination mandate, in a pandemic, is driven by the need to accelerate the achievement of public health goals of herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable in terms of case fatality and hospitalization rates, protecting the capacity of the acute health care system, as well as circumventing the economic impact. These mandates must still be guided by appropriate stakeholder involvement and bioethical considerations, to assess their validity and equitability, as vaccine mandates may impose restrictions on the freedoms and rights of an individual. Using COVID-19 as a case study, we argued the equitability of vaccine mandates based on the WHO framework of ethical considerations and caveats for mandatory vaccination. Necessity and proportionality of the vaccine, sufficient evidence of safety, efficacy, and effectiveness, sufficient supply, and public trust are key during ethical processes of decision-making. We conclude that vaccine mandates are more equitable as population-specific mandates, as opposed to global or universal mandates, even in pandemics. This is due to varying geographic, socio-cultural, and economic characteristics. Bioethicists should be actively engaged in discussions on the vaccine mandate, as its equitability is a function of critically analyzing the proposed mandate based on ethical recommendations prior to being issued. Retrospective bioethical analysis is warranted to identify shortfalls and make recommendations for future decision-making.","PeriodicalId":43498,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58177/ajb230004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In public health emergencies that warrant mass vaccination, vaccine mandates are sometimes imposed. There is historical evidence of the effectiveness of vaccination mandates, but varying strategies in policy implementation. The COVID-19 vaccine mandate presents an ethical imbroglio that poses these bioethical questions, “Is there ethical justification for a vaccine mandate?”, and “Whose responsibility is it to ensure the equitability of a vaccine mandate in a pandemic?” Using ethical principles and theories, this paper focuses on the health equity of vaccine mandates, considering both the global and local implications. Vaccination mandate, in a pandemic, is driven by the need to accelerate the achievement of public health goals of herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable in terms of case fatality and hospitalization rates, protecting the capacity of the acute health care system, as well as circumventing the economic impact. These mandates must still be guided by appropriate stakeholder involvement and bioethical considerations, to assess their validity and equitability, as vaccine mandates may impose restrictions on the freedoms and rights of an individual. Using COVID-19 as a case study, we argued the equitability of vaccine mandates based on the WHO framework of ethical considerations and caveats for mandatory vaccination. Necessity and proportionality of the vaccine, sufficient evidence of safety, efficacy, and effectiveness, sufficient supply, and public trust are key during ethical processes of decision-making. We conclude that vaccine mandates are more equitable as population-specific mandates, as opposed to global or universal mandates, even in pandemics. This is due to varying geographic, socio-cultural, and economic characteristics. Bioethicists should be actively engaged in discussions on the vaccine mandate, as its equitability is a function of critically analyzing the proposed mandate based on ethical recommendations prior to being issued. Retrospective bioethical analysis is warranted to identify shortfalls and make recommendations for future decision-making.
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
普遍疫苗授权的公平性——COVID-19疫苗的生物伦理分析
在需要大规模接种疫苗的突发公共卫生事件中,有时会强制要求接种疫苗。有历史证据表明疫苗接种任务的有效性,但在政策实施方面的战略各不相同。COVID-19疫苗授权提出了一个伦理问题,提出了这些生物伦理问题,“疫苗授权有道德理由吗?”以及“在大流行期间确保疫苗授权的公平性是谁的责任?”本文利用伦理原则和理论,重点关注疫苗授权的卫生公平性,同时考虑到全球和地方的影响。在大流行期间,需要加速实现群体免疫、在病死率和住院率方面保护最弱势群体、保护紧急卫生保健系统的能力以及规避经济影响等公共卫生目标,从而推动疫苗接种任务。这些任务仍然必须以利益攸关方的适当参与和生物伦理考虑为指导,以评估其有效性和公平性,因为疫苗任务可能对个人的自由和权利施加限制。以COVID-19为例,我们根据世卫组织关于强制性疫苗接种的伦理考虑和警告的框架,论证了疫苗授权的公平性。疫苗的必要性和比例性、安全性、有效性和有效性的充分证据、充足的供应和公众信任是决策伦理过程中的关键。我们的结论是,与全球或普遍授权相比,疫苗授权作为针对特定人群的授权更为公平,即使在大流行病中也是如此。这是由于不同的地理、社会文化和经济特征。生物伦理学家应积极参与关于疫苗任务的讨论,因为其公平性在于根据发布之前的伦理建议对拟议任务进行批判性分析。回顾性的生物伦理分析是必要的,以确定不足之处,并为今后的决策提出建议。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
18
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pragmatic ethical approaches to evangelising in the medical encounter The situation in Gaza – will cruelty and hatred triumph? Gaza and international law: The global obligation to protect life and health Is there a legal and ethical duty on doctors to inform patients of the likely co-payment costs should they be treated by practitioners who have contracted out of medical scheme rates? Three to one – an ethicolegal outline of mitochondrial donation in the South African context
×
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