Abstract

Compelling individuals to be vaccinated with candidate vaccines that have been granted emergency use approval based on limited data, and penalising non-compliance, raises challenging ethics issues. For instance, some individuals may wish to be vaccinated, but may be hesitant to be vaccinated with particular vaccine candidates. On the other hand, some individuals may be averse to vaccination of any sort but may find themselves being forced to submit to vaccination in certain situational contexts to gain access to benefits or services. In all such instances, acquiescence and submission runs counter to the notion of voluntariness, which is a central pillar of the doctrine of informed consent.

Highlights

  • Since December 2020, several COVID-19 candidate vaccines have demonstrated efficacy and been granted emergency use designation by major drug regulators and the WHO1

  • In some settings, access to essential services, employment, study, and travel could become conditional upon COVID-19 vaccination[4]

  • The adoption of such measures will effectively mean that individuals will be indirectly compelled to undergo COVID-19 vaccination, even in the absence of laws mandating such vaccination

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since December 2020, several COVID-19 candidate vaccines have demonstrated efficacy and been granted emergency use designation by major drug regulators and the WHO1. The accelerated pace of COVID-19 vaccine development, vaccine trials, and public deployment of candidate vaccines under emergency use regulatory frameworks merits praise. In some settings, access to essential services, employment, study, and travel could become conditional upon COVID-19 vaccination[4]. The adoption of such measures will effectively mean that individuals will be indirectly compelled to undergo COVID-19 vaccination, even in the absence of laws mandating such vaccination. As the pace of COVID-19 vaccine deployment gathers pace globally, the ethical issues implicit in indirect compulsion merit urgent attention

Discussion
Conclusion
Tabary Z
12. Felix J: Covid-19 vaccine
22. Kumar NK: Informed consent
28. Chakrabarti A
34. Richter A: Supreme Court
42. Republic of France Code of Defense
47. North Dakota State University Center for Immunization Research and Education
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.