Abstract
A Public Health Reset Through Contractualism
Highlights
Public health ethics has been contingent on a political landscape leading to several operational hurdles, especially during global health emergencies
This article highlights the ethical tension and limitations of a presumptive approach to public health that a vaccination policy might produce in a liberal political landscape
In trying to balance the considerations of individual liberty and the scope of the state to impose an intervention, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics came up with a design known as the ‘intervention ladder.’[2]. The takeaway from the intervention ladder is that the state has the burden of proof in justifying reasons for implementing a particular policy.[3]
Summary
The morbid circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic urge us to act in ways that translate to maximizing the overall good. Younger people should theoretically, count for more than older individuals in prioritizing benefits Such prioritization has been a matter of concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. The third utilitarian aid is the quality-of-life post-intervention.[17] Through measures such as QALYs and DALYs, 18 utilitarians have attempted to quantify each individual's quality after an intervention. This quantification can result in connecting an individual’s quality of life to their social worth. A mandatory vaccination policy aimed at crossing the threshold for herd immunity may overlook groups of people who are vulnerable due to a lack of access to the social determinants of health. Utilitarianism is not the most ethical approach to pandemic vaccination policy
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
