Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 45
Filter
1.
Front Public Health ; 10: 1015090, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2109885

ABSTRACT

Italy was the first country in Europe to make vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory for healthcare professionals by imposing restrictions in cases of non-compliance. This study investigates the opinions of the Italian healthcare professionals' categories affected by the regulation. We performed a qualitative online survey: the questionnaire comprised both close- and open-ended questions. The final dataset included n = 4,677 valid responses. Responses to closed-ended questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics. The framework method was applied for analyzing the open-ended questions. The sample spanned all health professions subject to compulsory vaccination, with a prevalence of physicians (43.8%) and nurses (26.3%). The vaccine adhesion before the introduction of the obligation was substantial. 10.4% declared not to have adhered to the vaccination proposal. Thirty-five percent of HPs who opted not to get vaccinated said they experienced consequences related to their choice. The trust in the vaccine seems slightly cracked, demonstrating overall vaccine confidence among professionals. Nonetheless, our results show that whether (or not) professionals adhere to vaccination is not a reliable indicator of consent to how it was achieved. There are criticisms about the lawfulness of the obligation. The data show a great variety of participants interpreting their roles concerning public and individual ethics. The scientific evidence motivates ethics-related decisions-the epidemic of confusing and incorrect information affected professionals. The Law triggered an increased disaffection with the health system and conflicts between professionals. Dealing with the working climate should be a commitment to assume soon.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Italy/epidemiology
3.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(10)2022 Oct 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2071941

ABSTRACT

During 2021-2022 many countries in the European region of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted mandatory and incentive-based vaccination measures to stimulate immunization against COVID-19. The measures ranged from positive incentive-based programs (i.e., cash incentives, meal discounts, and lotteries) to introducing COVID-19 certificates and enforcing the universal mandatory vaccination with fines. We assessed the effect of such interventions on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the population of eight countries within the region. An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was performed using an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) approach to account for autocorrelation and seasonality. The results showed the immediate positive impact of vaccination incentives on vaccine uptake in most cases, with the highest impact being cash incentives for the population (1197 per million population per day). Discount incentives did not show any significant impact. The introduction of COVID-19 certificates was associated with a significant immediate or gradual increase in daily administered vaccine doses in all the countries included in the study, up to 117,617 doses gained per million per month. The effect of mandatory vaccination for all or some groups of the population varied from a continuous decrease in daily administered doses (332 per million capita per day), no significant effect, or a delayed or temporary increase (1489 per million capita per day).

4.
International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare ; 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-2070209

ABSTRACT

Purpose The Covid-19 pandemic has persisted for almost three years. States have since then enforced laws, policies and measures believed to be the most effective to handle the global pandemic. Along this line, the Indonesian Government opted to implement mandatory vaccination and refusal of which entails monetary penalties. Hence, this study aims to analyze two legal issues that touch upon the realm of International Human Rights Law: first, whether state has the authority to implement the said mandatory vaccine program to those who refuse to be vaccinated, and second, how is the more appropriate legal policy to obligate vaccination but without coercive sanction. Design/methodology/approach This is a normative legal research that uses a qualitative method with case studies, conceptual, historical and comparative approaches. A descriptive-analytical deduction process was used in analyzing the issue. Findings The results present, as part of state's right to regulate, it has the authority to enact mandatory vaccination with monetary penalties to fulfil its obligation to protect public health in times of emergency;this is legal and constitutional but only if it satisfies the requirements under the International Human Rights Law: public health necessity, reasonableness, proportionality and harm avoidance. Alternatively, herd immunity is achievable without deploying unnecessary coercive sanctions, such as improving public channels of communication and information, adopting legal policies that incentivize people's compliance like exclusion from public services, subsidies revocation, employment restrictions, higher health insurance premiums, etc. Research limitations/implications This study analyzes in depth the following issues: of whether the government has the authority to apply mandatory vaccination laws enforced through monetary penalties for those who refused to be vaccinated and how does the government implement the appropriate legal policy to enforce mandatory vaccination without imposing penalties for non-compliance while maintaining a balance between the interests of protecting public health and the human rights of individuals to choose medical treatment for themselves, including whether they are willing to be vaccinated. Hence, the political affairs, economic matters and other non-legal related issues are excluded from this study. Originality/value This paper hence offers a suggestive insight for state in formulating a policy relating to the mandatory vaccination program. Although the monetary penalties do not directly violate the rule of law, a more non-coercive approach to the society would be more favorable.

5.
Vniversitas ; 71, 2022.
Article in Spanish | Scopus | ID: covidwho-2025450

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the scientific community, the economy, health systems and of course, the Law. A significant number of States have imposed general and localized restriction and lockdown measures to control the disease and its spread. However, vaccination appears as one of the most effective tools to combat its spread and lethality, which is why a legal debate has been opened about its mandatory nature. In this article it is argued that, despite the affectation to some fundamental rights, restrictive measures to promote vaccination could overcome the weighting judgment. To support this argument, we will proceed to develop some constitutional “scenarios” and address the reasonableness and proportionality of the most common measures identified in the comparative experience. © 2022 Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. All rights reserved.

6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(16)2022 08 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1987801

ABSTRACT

Many governments and institutions mandated COVID-19 vaccines. In late 2021, we sought to ascertain the perspectives of staff and students from The University of Western Australia about the State or the University mandating COVID-19 vaccines. The survey captured vaccination status and intentions along with attitudes towards mandates and potential types of exemptions with 2878 valid responses which were quantitatively analysed and 2727 which were qualitatively analysed. The study found generally high levels of vaccination or intent, and strong support for mandates, underpinned by beliefs that vaccination is a moral duty and that mandates make campus feel safer. These sentiments were not more prevalent amongst individuals with comorbidities; often healthy individuals supported mandates to reduce their risk of transmitting disease to vulnerable family members. Individuals with comorbidities were, however, more supportive of excluding the unvaccinated from campus. Most opponents were unvaccinated, and many indicated that mandate policies would backfire, making them less likely to vaccinate. Despite the strong overall support, 41% of respondents did not want to see non-compliant staff or students lose their positions, and only 35% actively sought this. Institutions or governments introducing mandates should emphasise community concerns about catching COVID-19 and becoming sick or transmitting the disease to vulnerable loved ones.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Australia , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Universities , Vaccination
7.
BioLaw Journal ; 2022(2):329-352, 2022.
Article in English, Italian | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1975460

ABSTRACT

Covid-19 vaccination is considered the only effective tool against the pandemic. To achieve public health goals, some countries, including ours, considered making it mandatory. However, the imposition of a mandatory vaccination represents a significant implication on the exercise of fundamental human rights. On 8 April 2021, the HUDOC ruled on the mandatory vaccination for the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable people. This work aims to give an analysis of main legal and ethical issues focused on this case that should be taken in consideration by the States before assessing the need for mandatory vaccination. © 2022. All Rights Reserved.

8.
Infectious Diseases: News, Opinions, Training ; 11(2):112-119, 2022.
Article in Russian | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1955516

ABSTRACT

In the context of a pandemic of a new coronavirus infection, vaccine prophylaxis within the framework of the National Calendar of Preventive Vaccinations (NCPV) is an absolute priority in the fight against infectious diseases. The lecture presents the structure and features of the NCPV, the main directions of its improvement, information on the priority infections for vaccination. The strategy of immunization throughout life, which guarantees the creation of maximum protection against infections and preservation of the optimal level of health of people without age restrictions, is considered. Information is provided on approaches to vaccination of various patient populations against new coronavirus, pertussis, pneumococcal, and rotavirus infections. The presented lecture materials can be useful both to medical students and doctors of various specialties (infectious disease specialists, pediatricians, epidemiologists, bacteriologists). © 2022 by the authors.

9.
J Bioeth Inq ; 19(3): 451-465, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1942846

ABSTRACT

This paper defends four lines of argument that establish an ethical obligation for clinicians to be vaccinated against COVID-19. They are:(1) The obligation to protect patients against COVID-19 spread;(2) The obligation to maintain professional competence and remain available for patients;(3) Clinicians' role and place in society in relation to COVID-19;(4) The obligation to encourage societal vaccination uptake.These arguments stand up well against potential objections and provide a compelling case to consider acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination a duty for all clinicians. This duty brings with it the implication that vaccine refusal amounts to a dereliction of the professional's ethical obligations, which means such clinicians should be subject to disciplinary action. Furthermore, this duty provides grounding for mandatory vaccination policies for clinicians.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Health Personnel , Humans , Vaccination
10.
International Journal of Public Health Science ; 11(3):967-974, 2022.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1934614

ABSTRACT

Departing from the mandatory vaccination had been debated and received a lot of rejection which has caused intense emotions. In this study, the authors tried to evaluate the mandatory regulation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination from a human rights and utilitarianism perspective. By conducting normative research method, this study revealed that indeed the obligation that tends to be coercive for COVID-19 vaccination seems to violate individual human rights which each individual has the right to decide for themselves whether they want to participate in the program or not without coercion. However, mandatory vaccination is still justified, from a human rights perspective, to protect other people's rights not to be infected with infectious diseases. This is also in line with a utilitarian perspective that departs from the argument that vaccines provide a myriad of benefits for many people in the midst of a pandemic, therefore to create benefits for the majority of society, the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is something that is needed. Even if necessary, both sanctions and punishments can be justified in utilitarianism to achieve the greatest utility for the society. © 2022, Intelektual Pustaka Media Utama. All rights reserved.

11.
Vaccine ; 2022 Jun 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931170

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive. METHODS: Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n = 50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Six themes were identified in participants' narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create 'vaccine apartheid'; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.

12.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; 21(10): 1443-1454, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1927218

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant and breastfeeding women are at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Despite this, low vaccination coverages are reported in this population sub-group. AREAS COVERED: The purpose of this study is to estimate the proportion of pregnant and breastfeeding women expressing hesitation to the COVID-19 vaccine worldwide. Forty-six studies were included, selected from scientific articles available in three scientific databases between 1 January 2020 and 6 February 2022. The vaccine hesitation rate among pregnant and breastfeeding women was 48.4% (95%CI=43.4-53.4%). In a sub analysis by study period, it was 40.0% (95%CI=31.6-46.6%) considering surveys administered in 2020, 58.0% (95%CI=48.9-66.9%) considering surveys administered in the first semester of 2021, and 38.1% (95%CI=25.9-51.2%) considering surveys administered in the second semester of 2021. The main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events. EXPERT OPINION: Available evidence in the literature has shown that fighting vaccine resistance is harsh and too slow as a process, considering the rapidity and unpredictability of a pandemic. Health education should be provided in order to improve the willingness of the community, especially for those with lower levels of education.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Breast Feeding , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Vaccination , Vaccination Hesitancy
13.
Deutsches Arzteblatt International ; 119(11):A492-A493, 2022.
Article in German | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1913025
14.
JMIR Form Res ; 6(6): e35754, 2022 Jun 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910892

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization Emergency Committee declared the rapid worldwide spread of COVID-19 a global health emergency. By December 2020, the safety and efficacy of the first COVID-19 vaccines had been demonstrated. However, international vaccination coverage rates have remained below expectations (in Europe at the time of manuscript submission). Controversial mandatory vaccination is currently being discussed and has already been introduced in some countries (Austria, Greece, and Italy). We used the Twitter survey system as a viable method to quickly and comprehensively gather international public health insights on mandatory vaccination against COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to better understand the public's perception of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in real time using Twitter polls. METHODS: Two Twitter polls were developed (in the English language) to seek the public's opinion on the possibility of mandatory vaccination. The polls were pinned to the Digital Health and Patient Safety Platform's (based in Vienna, Austria) Twitter timeline for 1 week in mid-November 2021, 3 days after the official public announcement of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in Austria. Twitter users were asked to participate and retweet the polls to reach the largest possible audience. RESULTS: Our Twitter polls revealed two extremes on the topic of mandatory vaccination against COVID-19. Almost half of the 2545 respondents (n=1246, 49%) favor mandatory vaccination, at least in certain areas. This attitude contrasts with the 45.7% (n=1162) who categorically reject mandatory vaccination. Over one-quarter (n=621, 26.3%) of participating Twitter users said they would never get vaccinated, as reflected by the current Western European and North American vaccination coverage rate. Concatenating interpretation of these two polls should be done cautiously as participating populations might substantially differ. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 (in at least certain areas) is favored by less than 50%, whereas it is opposed by almost half of the surveyed Twitter users. Since (social) media strongly influences public perceptions and views, and social media discussions and surveys are specifically susceptible to the "echo chamber effect," the results should be interpreted as a momentary snapshot. Therefore, the results of this study need to be complemented by long-term surveys to maintain their validity.

15.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; 21(9): 1289-1300, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1908602

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: As for other vaccines, vaccination hesitancy may be a determining factor in the success (or otherwise) of the COVID-19 immunization campaign in healthcare workers (HCWs). AREAS COVERED: To estimate the proportion of HCWs in Italy who expressed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, we conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature and a meta-analysis. Determinants of vaccine compliance and options suggested by these studies to address vaccine hesitancy among HCWs were also analyzed. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus databases between 1 January 2020 and 25 January 2022. The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.9-20.9%). The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs investigated before and during the vaccination campaign was 18.2% (95%CI = 12.8-24.2%) and 8.9% (95%CI = 3.4-16.6%), respectively. That main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events. EXPERT OPINION: Despite strategies to achieve a greater willingness to immunize in this category, mandatory vaccination appears to be one of the most important measures that can guarantee the protection of HCWs and the patients they care for.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Health Personnel , Humans , Vaccination , Vaccination Hesitancy
16.
Polish Journal of Public Health ; 131(1):16-19, 2021.
Article in English | CAB Abstracts | ID: covidwho-1892559

ABSTRACT

Introduction. Vaccines are one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine. The compulsory vaccination schedule was introduced in Poland in the 1950s. Vaccinations are sometimes followed by adverse effects (ARV). The most common symptoms of ARV are swelling, redness and soreness at the injection site, usually lasting up to 24 hours after vaccination. Aim. The aim of our study was to check the attitude of students of Lublin universities to vaccination in the COVID-19 period. Material and methods. In December 2020 we conducted an anonymous and voluntary survey. It was uploaded and shared on the Google online survey platform. A total of 75 students participated in the study. Results. The respondents were 56 women and 19 men. Out of them 30 (40%) were from Medical University of Lublin (MUL), 15 (20%) from University of Life Sciences (ULS), 21 from University of Marie Sklodowska-Curie (UMCS) (28%) and 9 from Lublin University of Technology (LUT) (LP) (12%). Their mean age was 22 years +or- 1.1 (SD). More than half of the respondents were not interested in compulsory vaccinations before the COVID-19 pandemic. Only about 35% (18 persons) of people expressed a positive opinion about vaccines and they were students of MUL. Although 80% of respondents answered that the anti COVID-19 vaccine is necessary, but 81% thought that Poles had not enough knowledge about the vaccine. Students themselves most often obtained information about vaccines and ARVs from Internet. Conclusion. Students of MUL were the most enthusiastic about mandatory vaccinations and anti COVID-19 immunization. Poles need more reliable information about vaccine to change their attitude towards it.

17.
Lijecnicki Vjesnik ; 144:139-143, 2022.
Article in Croatian | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1879782

ABSTRACT

Introduction. The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a lockdown resulting in an 85% reduction in the compulsory immunization of children in 82 countries in May 2020 compared to January and February 2020. The World Health Organization states that during the first four months, for the first time in 28 years, the vaccination coverage of children with the third dose of gout, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines dropped significantly. The objective of the research is to determine the effect of COVID-19 on the implementation of mandatory vaccination of children and youth in the FBiH in 2020 compared to 2019. Subjects and methods: Data for vaccination coverage for children and youth in FBiH were extracted from the official records of the Institute for Public Health of the FBiH, in 2019 and 2020. The percentage of children vaccinated through mandatory vaccination processes was analyzed, expressed as a percentage in primary vaccination and revaccination by FBiH counties in 2020 and 2019 in relation to the planned number of children. Results. The study found a decrease in vaccination with the first doses of vaccine in FBiH, with the exception of the BCG vaccine, which has an increase of 2.3% compared to 2019. In particular, there is a decrease in vaccination with the third dose of the Hepatitis B vaccine and the DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccine third dose. In 2020, in the FBiH, there was a decrease of 26.7% in vaccination with the first dose of MRP vaccine. Conclusion. The research found a significant decline in the vaccination of children and youth for almost all vaccines in all FBiH counties in 2020, which indicates an increased risk for vaccine-preventable diseases.Vaccination improvement activities in the FBiH need to be intensified in order to reduce the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. © 2022 Hrvatski Lijecnicki Zbor. All rights reserved.

18.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(5)2022 May 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1869840

ABSTRACT

Poland's efforts to combat COVID-19 were hindered by endemic vaccination hesitancy and the prevalence of opponents to pandemic restrictions. In this environment, the policy of a COVID-19 vaccination mandate faces strong resistance in the public debate. Exploring the discourse around this resistance could help uncover the motives and develop an understanding of vaccination hesitancy in Poland. This paper aims to conduct a social network analysis and content analysis of Twitter discussions around the intention of the Polish Ministry of Health to introduce mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19. Twitter was chosen as a platform to study because of the critical role it played during the global health crisis. Twitter data were retrieved from 26 July to 9 December 2021 through the API v2 for Academic Research, and analysed using NodeXL and Gephi. When conducting social network analysis, nodes were ranked by their betweenness centrality. Clustering analysis with the Clauset-Newman-Moore algorithm revealed two important groups of users: advocates and opponents of mandatory vaccination. The temporal trends of tweets, the most used hashtags, the sentiment expressed in the most popular tweets, and correlations with epidemiological data were also studied. The results reveal a substantial degree of polarisation, a high intensity of the discussion, and a high degree of involvement of Twitter users. Vaccination mandate advocates were consistently more numerous, but less engaged and less mobilised to "preach" their own stances. Vaccination mandate opponents were vocal and more mobilised to participate: either as original authors or as information diffusers. Our research leads to the conclusion that systematic monitoring of the public debate on vaccines is essential not only in counteracting misinformation, but also in crafting evidence-based as well as emotionally motivating narratives.

19.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(5)2022 May 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1855855

ABSTRACT

The infections and deaths resulting from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggered the need for some governments to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. The present study aims to analyze the position of 3026 adults in Colombia, El Salvador, and Spain regarding the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine mandatory and the intention to be vaccinated with the booster or possible successive doses. Data from an online survey conducted from August to December 2021 among a non-representative sample of Spanish-speaking countries were collected. Multinomial Logistic Regression Models were used. A total of 77.4% of Colombians were in favor of mandatory vaccination compared to 71.5% of Salvadorians and 65.4% of Spaniards (p < 0.000). Women and people over 65 years of age were the groups most in favor of making the vaccine mandatory (p < 0.000). A total of 79.4% said they had received a third dose or would intend to receive the third dose or future doses, if necessary, compared with 9.4% who expressed doubts and 9.9% who refused to be vaccinated or did not intend to be vaccinated. Among the measures that could be taken to motivate vaccination, 63.0% and 60.6% were in favor of requiring a negative test to enter any place of leisure or work, respectively, compared to 16.2% in favor of suspension from work without pay. The acceptance of mandatory vaccination and of third or future doses varies greatly according to sociodemographic characteristics and work environment. As such, it is recommended that policy makers adapt public health strategies accordingly.

20.
Public Administration and Policy ; 25(1):25-36, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1831710

ABSTRACT

Purpose>The article addresses the tension between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the right to work in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, it explores the operation of corporations in adopting policies of mandatory vaccination and the role of the courts regarding these CSR patterns.Design/methodology/approach>The article examines court case studies of CSR practices regarding unvaccinated employees during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel and the United States.Findings>The findings show that the Israeli system adopted the regulating for individual discretionary CSR approach, whereas the American system adopted the regulating for ethical-public CSR approach. Adopting the latter infringes upon the right to work of unvaccinated employees. While in Israel, the possibility of compelling employees to vaccinate is denied, in the American model, mandatory vaccination is possible. As opposed to the American model, in the Israeli model, there is an obligation to consider proportionate measures to isolate the employees while allowing them to continue working.Originality/value>The article introduces two possible notions of regulating CSR in times of the pandemic – regulating for individual discretionary CSR which is labor-oriented and regulating for ethical-public CSR which is focused on public aspects. While the former posits that corporations should advance individual interests of employees and their right to work, the latter claims that corporations should advance the public interest in health. Following the problems resulting from the Israeli and American cases, the article draws on the lines for a suggested approach that courts should embrace.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL