Autonomy and Social Responsibility: The Post-Pandemic Challenge.

Over the last 80 years, a series of critical events has led to reconsideration of the basic premises of medical ethics. One of these events was the recognition of horrific medical experiments performed by German medical scientists in World War II concentration camps, resulting in intensified emphasis on a consent requirement, later understood as grounded in the bioethical principle of respect for autonomy, as well as on the moral accountability of the experimenter. Another important event that is forcing a reconsideration of respect for autonomy in medicine and health care is the COVID-19 pandemic. But this time the matter pulls in a different direction, from respect for autonomy to social responsibility, represented in problems as disparate as the wearing of masks, vaccination requirements, and equity in vaccine access and distribution. How can modern bioethics, in part a creature of the response to Nazi crimes, accommodate the intensified sensitivity about public health needs that has accompanied the shock of the pandemic? The responses of European medical ethics to the Nazi era provide tools for bioethics as it faces the challenge now at hand. This article uses historical context from postwar Europe to argue that, in light of the pandemic experience, respect for autonomy must systematically incorporate a commitment to social responsibility.

John Stuart Mill is relevant to COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy today.

The scientific evidence about COVID-19 and pregnancy is conclusive: COVID-19 infections increase the risk of stillbirths and preterm births, and pregnant and postpartum patients are more likely to get severely ill with COVID-19 and die when compared with people who are not pregnant. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine protects from severe illness from COVID-19 and risk of death. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for pregnant patients, those trying to conceive, and who are breastfeeding, or might become pregnant in the future. The justification for government involvement in public health measures that restrict personal liberty that we are so familiar with today emanated from a philosophical source at the same time as the progress in managing infectious disease. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an empiricist and a utilitarian, was not specifically addressing the ethics of public health in his classic On Liberty (1859), but his arguments have become the reference point for liberal democracies and public health measures. Mill was in search of a philosophical principle that could justify constraints on personal freedom. John Stuart Mill gives direct guidance to our approach supporting not only strong recommendations for pregnant patients to accept vaccinations against COVID-19 but also for those working in healthcare setting to be required to be vaccinated. This approach is respectful to our patient's liberty while doing all that's reasonable to protect them from harm. Based on our professional experience we recognize that some physicians and patients have fixed false beliefs. Physicians espousing fixed false beliefs against COVID-19 vaccines should be censured.

The Vaccination Cold War.

Surveying the early responses to the Covid-19 pandemic among nation states, one finds a veritable babel of responses, some predictable and some not. Would these results have been different half a century or more ago, when smallpox was eradicated and hopes were high that international cooperation would yield similar results for other infectious diseases? Is this a story about the stability provided by the bipolar postwar world, juxtaposed with the complex geopolitical repositioning that finally followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, or is that too rich an irony? A multipolar world may indeed be less prepared to cope with an international health crisis than a bipolar one. In any case, the patterns of global response are not only reminiscent of the Cold War era itself but also suggestive of a new vaccination cold war.

Human Infection Challenge Experiments: Then and Now.

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists, researchers, and journalists have recommended studies that deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the coronavirus as a scientific means of expediting vaccine development. In this essay, we trace the history of infection challenge experiments and reflect on the Nuremberg Code of 1947, issued in response to brutal human experiments conducted by Nazi investigators in concentration camps. We argue that the Code continues to offer valuable guidance for assessing the ethics of this controversial form of research, with respect particularly to the acceptable limits to research risks and the social value of research necessary to justify exposing human participants to these risks.