An Ethical Anaylsis of the Arguments Both For and Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Since the development of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccine for the prevention of serious disease and death associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, health care workers have been expected to comply with mandatory immunization requirements or face potential termination of employment and censure by their state medical boards. Although most accepted this mandate, there have been several who have felt this was an unnecessary intrusion and violation of their right to choose their own health care mitigation strategies, or an infringement on their autonomy and other civil liberties. Others have argued that being a health care professional places your duties above your own self-interests, so-called fiduciary duties. As a result of these duties, there is an expected obligation to do the best action to achieve the "most good" for society. A so-called "utilitarian argument." DISCUSSION: We explore arguments both for and against these mandatory vaccine requirements and conclude using duty- and consequence-based moral reasoning to weigh the merits of each. CONCLUSIONS: Although arguments for and against vaccine mandates are compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's personal liberties.

Addressing Moral Injury in Emergency Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Moral injury, which is described as the psychological distress that results from actions, or lack of them, that go against one's beliefs or values, has become front and center among issues facing the practice of emergency medicine. Although it predates the COVID-19 outbreak, the pandemic has played a significant role in the increased rate of burnout, and even suicide, among emergency physicians. CASE REPORTS: This paper includes several clinical vignettes to highlight incidents that may occur in the emergency department (ED) when physicians experience violations of their moral codes, leading to distress and moral injury. These scenarios explore the conflicts posed between competing bioethical principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, end-of-life decision-making, medical futility, respect for self-determination (autonomy), resource scarcity and triage, duty to care, and physician impairment. DISCUSSION: There are significant similarities between moral injury and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with some authors describing moral injury as a subset of PTSD. We explore these commonalities to provide coping mechanisms and mitigation strategies for those suffering from moral injury. CONCLUSION: Physicians experiencing moral injury may benefit from the many available evidence-based treatments for PTSD to identify and manage moral injury and to support patient care and personal well-being.