Mandatory vaccination and the 'seat belt analogy' argument: a critical analysis in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The seat belt analogy argument is aimed at furthering the success of coercive vaccination efforts on the basis that the latter is similar to compulsory use of seat belts. However, this article demonstrated that this argument does not work so well in practice due to several reasons. The possibility of saving resources in health care does not usually apply in our societies, and the paternalist mentality that contributed to the implementation of seat belt-wearing obligation was predominant 30 years ago, but it does not apply at this moment. Furthermore, the risk/benefit analysis is totally different in both scenarios. In the case of seat belts, there is no way to discriminate between the users. In the case of vaccines, individuals present with unique circumstances that may differ substantially from those of another and might be foreseen a priori. This means that an analysis must be performed individually before vaccination is imposed. Finally, one must keep in mind that seat belts are often the only way in which we can protect third parties against a tragic hit by the occupant of another vehicle and are very efficient tools for this purpose. Vaccines, in contrast, do not always create sterilising immunity and are definitely not the only way by which we can avoid spreading a virus; immunity certificates, isolation, or even confinement may also serve as viable methods to achieve this purpose.

Vaccine Hesitancy and Coercive Vaccination in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Preliminary Moral Evaluation

Vaccine hesitancy, a delay in acceptance or even refusal of vaccination, is a problem not only linked to public knowledge of science but also caused by complex beliefs and a lack of confidence in authority. People who support coercive vaccination argue that vaccination is a comparatively safe path for people in a community to reach herd immunity. Weighing the benefits and costs, coercive vaccination is morally permissible. However, whether we should enact it for Covid-19 vaccines or respect people who have vaccine hesitancy is a moral issue worthy of detailed investigation. Similar debates have also been around coercive use of the measles vaccine, which will serve as a point of comparison in this evaluation. There are different kinds of arguments for and against policies of coercive vaccination, but whether positive or negative, they involve values that are incommensurable but should be compared and ranked accordingly in different situations. We argue that consequential evaluation, as suggested by Amartya Sen, forms the moral reasoning and foundation to evaluate these plural values. Using consequential evaluation, we can compare the moral similarities and differences between Covid-19 vaccines and measles vaccines and develop a framework to evaluate the moral issue of coercive vaccination.