<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>Vaccine scarcity and availability distinguish two central ethics questions raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. First, in situations of scarcity, which groups of persons should receive priority? Second, in situations where safe and effective vaccines are available, what circumstances and reasons can support mandatory vaccination? Regarding the first question, normative approaches converge in prioritizing most-vulnerable groups. Though there is room for prudential judgement regarding which groups are most vulnerable, the human dignity principle is most relevant for prioritization consideration of both medical and non-medical issues. The second question concerning mandates is distinct from considerations about persons’ individual moral duty to receive vaccines judged reasonably safe and critical for individual and public health. While there is consensus regarding the potential normative support for mandated vaccination, the paternalistic government intervention of vaccine mandates requires a high bar of demonstrated vaccine safety and public health risk. We discuss stronger and weaker forms of paternalism to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic from an “integrative” approach that integrates leading normative approaches. We argue against a population-wide compulsory vaccination and support prudential measures to 1) protect vulnerable groups; 2) focus upon incentivizing vaccine participation; 3) maintain maximum-possible individual freedoms, and 4) allow schools, organizations, and enterprises to implement vaccine requirements in local contexts.</p>
</abstract>

Vaccine scarcity and availability distinguish two central ethics questions raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. First, in situations of scarcity, which groups of persons should receive priority? Second, in situations where safe and effective vaccines are available, what circumstances and reasons can support mandatory vaccination? Regarding the first question, normative approaches converge in prioritizing most-vulnerable groups. Though there is room for prudential judgement regarding which groups are most vulnerable, the human dignity principle is most relevant for prioritization consideration of both medical and non-medical issues. The second question concerning mandates is distinct from considerations about persons’ individual moral duty to receive vaccines judged reasonably safe and critical for individual and public health. While there is consensus regarding the potential normative support for mandated vaccination, the paternalistic government intervention of vaccine mandates requires a high bar of demonstrated vaccine safety and public health risk. We discuss stronger and weaker forms of paternalism to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic from an “integrative” approach that integrates leading normative approaches. We argue against a population-wide compulsory vaccination and support prudential measures to 1) protect vulnerable groups; 2) focus upon incentivizing vaccine participation; 3) maintain maximum-possible individual freedoms, and 4) allow schools, organizations, and enterprises to implement vaccine requirements in local contexts.

Ethics of vaccination prioritization and compulsory vaccination: An integrative approach

SRH Wilhelm Loehe University of Applied Science

Ethics & Bioethics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Vaccine scarcity and availability distinguish two central ethics questions raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. First, in situations of scarcity, which groups of...

Ethics of vaccination prioritization and compulsory vaccination: An integrative approach

Publié en ligne: 14 déc. 2021

Pages: 153 - 162

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ebce-2021-0012

Mots clés
covid-19, vulnerable persons, prioritization, compulsory vaccination, dignity

© 2021 Martin O’Malley et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Ethics of vaccination prioritization and compulsory vaccination: An integrative approach

Publié en ligne: 14 déc. 2021

Pages: 153 - 162

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ebce-2021-0012

Mots cléscovid-19, vulnerable persons, prioritization, compulsory vaccination, dignity

© 2021 Martin O’Malley et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Mots clés
covid-19, vulnerable persons, prioritization, compulsory vaccination, dignity