The ethics of encouraging employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

The coronavirus pandemic continues to hinder the ability of businesses to operate at full capacity. Vaccination offers a path for employees to return to work, and for businesses to resume full capacity, while protecting themselves, their fellow workers, and customers. Many employers reluctant to mandate vaccination for their employees are considering other ways to increase employee vaccination rates. Because much has been written about the ethics of vaccine mandates, we examine a related and less discussed topic: the ethics of encouragement strategies aimed at overcoming vaccine reluctance (which can be due to resistance, hesitance, misinformation, or inertia) to facilitate voluntary employee vaccination. While employment-based vaccine encouragement may raise privacy and autonomy concerns, and though some employers might hesitate to encourage employees to get vaccinated, our analysis suggests ethically acceptable ways to inform, encourage, strongly encourage, incentivize, and even subtly pressure employees to get vaccinated.

The ethics of global COVID-19 vaccine allocation

IntroductionPolicies to increase global vaccine access involve HICs making ethically fraught tradeoffs between saving lives at home or abroad. Such policies should be justifiable to the affected populations. Yet there is little robust data on whether HIC residents endorse their countries’ policy choices. Most existing data asks highly simplified questions, without providing background on the ethical tradeoffs involved. These data do not capture the public’s informed views, giving policymakers limited guidance on how to craft international vaccine policy. This paper provides the first nuanced data on the informed views of a representative sample of the U.S. public about providing COVID vaccine to poorer countries.MethodsThis study involved two interventions: a description of ethical arguments for/against providing vaccine to poorer countries and visuals depiction of ethically relevant tradeoffs about providing vaccine to poorer countries at different time points in the US vaccination campaign. A representative sample of 4000 U.S. adults were surveyed, divided evenly into four arms: 1) arguments only;2) tradeoffs only;3) both interventions;4) no interventions.ResultsAcross all four arms, people are more willing to donate vaccines than previously reported, with generosity increasing over time. 43% of respondents were willing to share at an early timepoint when supply was extremely limited, increasing to 54% and 71% at intermediate and current timepoints, respectively. Some specific variables (e.g., political affiliation, age, acceptability of masks) were predictive of willingness to donate and endorsement of specific arguments.DiscussionThese data can guide policy about providing or keeping U.S. vaccine doses as the world navigates the effects of new variants and the potential need for booster shots in the coming months. Given high levels of willingness to donate, U.S. policy could have initiated global vaccine donations earlier and could be more generous currently.

The Ethics of Repurposing Previously Collected Research Biospecimens in an Infectious Disease Pandemic.

In the early days of a pandemic, repurposing biospecimens from established research projects could prove to be extraordinarily useful in achieving substantial and timely public health benefits. Nonetheless, there are potential ethical and regulatory uncertainties that may impede access to those valuable biospecimens. In this article, we argue that there should be a presumption in favor of using previously collected identifiable research biospecimens without reconsent to directly address an infectious disease pandemic, assuming certain conditions are met. This argument fills a unique yet critical gap in decision-making where the specific consent accompanying the identifiable biospecimens would not otherwise permit repurposing. Further, it suggests that even if gaining reconsent is feasible, doing so in a fast-moving crisis is not necessary. This analysis also attempts to address the ethical concerns of public health authorities who already may have the power to use such specimens but are reluctant to do so.