The Ethical Significance of Post-Vaccination COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics.

The potential for vaccines to prevent the spread of infectious diseases is crucial for vaccination policy and ethics. In this paper, I discuss recent evidence that the current COVID-19 vaccines have only a modest and short-lived effect on reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and argue that this has at least four important ethical implications. First, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 should be seen primarily as a self-protective choice for individuals. Second, moral condemnation of unvaccinated people for causing direct harm to others is unjustified. Third, the case for a harm-based moral obligation to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is weak. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, coercive COVID-19 vaccination policies (e.g., measures that exclude unvaccinated people from society) cannot be directly justified by the harm principle.

Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?

Mandatory vaccination, including for COVID-19, can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for non-compliance are proportionate. I describe an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination. Penalties or costs could include withholding of benefits, imposition of fines, provision of community service or loss of freedoms. I argue that under conditions of risk or perceived risk of a novel vaccination, a system of payment for risk in vaccination may be superior. I defend a payment model against various objections, including that it constitutes coercion and undermines solidarity. I argue that payment can be in cash or in kind, and opportunity for altruistic vaccinations can be preserved by offering people who have been vaccinated the opportunity to donate any cash payment back to the health service.

Between Care and Coercion: Asylum Seekers' Experiences With COVID-19 Containment and Mitigation Measures in German Reception Centres.

Objectives: COVID-19 containment and mitigation measures have been criticised for amplifying pre-existing individual and structural vulnerabilities among asylum seekers. We qualitatively explored their experiences with and attitudes towards pandemic measures to inform people-centred responses in future health emergencies. Methods: We interviewed eleven asylum seekers in a German reception centre (July-December 2020). The semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically with an inductive-deductive approach. Results: Quarantine was experienced as burdensome by participants. Shortcomings in social support, everyday necessities, information, hygiene, and daily activities exacerbated the strains of quarantine. Interviewees held different opinions about the usefulness and appropriateness of the various containment and mitigation measures. These opinions differed by individual risk perception and the measures' comprehensibility and compatibility with personal needs. Power asymmetries related to the asylum system furthermore impacted on preventive behaviour. Conclusion: Quarantine can amplify mental health burdens and power asymmetries and can therefore constitute a considerable stressor for asylum seekers. Provision of diversity-sensitive information, daily necessities, and accessible psychosocial support is required to counteract adverse psychosocial impacts of pandemic measures and safeguard wellbeing in this population.

A two-center pilot study on the effects of clinical ethics support on coercive measures in psychiatry.

BACKGROUND: The use of formal coercion such as seclusion, mechanical restraint, and forced medication is one of the most challenging and complex issues in mental health care, on the clinical, the legal, and the ethical level. Clinical ethics support aims at assisting healthcare practitioners in determining the morally most justifiable course of action in these situations. However, the effectiveness of clinical ethics support has hardly been studied so far. METHODS: Monthly moral case deliberation (MCD) was implemented in two acute wards of two different psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland. Frequency and intensity of coercion was measured on ward level (npatients = 405), and the Moral Attentiveness Scale, Knowledge on Coercion Scale, and Staff Attitudes towards Coercion Scale were applied on healthcare practitioner level (nHP = 46). Pre-post-comparisons were conducted using multi-level modeling where appropriate. RESULTS: After implementation of MCD, formal coercion was less frequent (particularly seclusion, small effect size; 9.6 vs. 16.7%, p = .034, Cramér's V = .105) and less intense (particularly mechanical restraint, large effect size; 86.8 ± 45.3 vs. 14.5 ± 12.1 h, exact p = .019, r = -.74), and approval for coercive measures among healthcare practitioners was lower when controlling for the number of MCD sessions attended. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical ethics support such as MCD may be a hitherto underutilized service for the reduction of coercion, complementing existing strategies and programs. Implementing clinical ethics support may help improve quality of care for persons suffering from severe mental illness.

Increase in coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the pandemic in 2020 caused changes in psychiatric hospital cases, the percentage of patients exposed to coercive interventions, and aggressive incidents. METHODS: We used the case registry for coercive measures of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, comprising case-related data on mechanical restraint, seclusion, physical restraint, and forced medication in each of the State's 31 licensed hospitals treating adults, to compare data from 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: The number of cases in adult psychiatry decreased by 7.6% from 105,782 to 97,761. The percentage of involuntary cases increased from 12.3 to 14.1%, and the absolute number of coercive measures increased by 4.7% from 26,269 to 27,514. The percentage of cases exposed to any kind of coercive measure increased by 24.6% from 6.5 to 8.1%, and the median cumulative duration per affected case increased by 13.1% from 12.2 to 13.8 hrs, where seclusion increased more than mechanical restraint. The percentage of patients with aggressive incidents, collected in 10 hospitals, remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: While voluntary cases decreased considerably during the pandemic, involuntary cases increased slightly. However, the increased percentage of patients exposed to coercion is not only due to a decreased percentage of voluntary patients, as the duration of coercive measures per case also increased. The changes that indicate deterioration in treatment quality were probably caused by the multitude of measures to manage the pandemic. The focus of attention and internal rules as well have shifted from prevention of coercion to prevention of infection.

[Monitoring of coercive measures and compulsory treatment in Germany]. / Monitoring von Zwangsmaßnahmen und Zwangsbehandlungen in Deutschland.

Epidemiological registers on the burden of disease and adverse events (deaths, serious side effects, etc.) play an important role in the management, evaluation, and improvement of healthcare treatment for the population. This also applies to coercive measures in the psychiatric healthcare system. Such registers only became feasible on a broad basis due to the availability of electronic medical records and steadily increasing computing capacities; however, in most German states, registers have not been implemented. Data protection problems must be taken into account in the collation of person-related data but can be solved by appropriate pseudonymization procedures taking the prerequisites of data parsimony into account. Extensive data are now available from the Baden-Wuerttemberg register for coercive measures, which has been in existence since 2015 and which enabled, for instance, evaluating the consequences of the changes to the law following the 2018 ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court on mechanical restraint and the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. In the meantime, there are also state-wide data collections in some other German states; however, unlike in Baden-Wuerttemberg, these registers do not include measures under guardianship law. A nationwide register for coercive measures, compulsory treatment and involuntary detention has justifiably repeatedly been demanded for a long time. A major obstacle is the historically developed separation between the responsibility of the German states for the detention regulated by public law and the Federal State for the scope of application of the guardianship law.

An Exploratory Study among Intellectual Disability Physicians on the Care and Coercion Act and the Use of Psychotropic Drugs for Challenging Behaviour.

The new Dutch Care and Coercion Act aims to better regulate the use of psychotropic drugs for challenging behaviour in people with an intellectual disability. This study explores experiences of intellectual disability physicians (IDPs) in prescribing psychotropic drugs and investigates how the Act and the new multidisciplinary guideline on challenging behaviour affects their practice. A qualitative study was conducted, consisting of nine semi-structured in-depth interviews with IDPs, followed by a thematic analysis. It was found that IDPs experienced the new Act and guideline as supportive of their work as guardians of the appropriate use of psychotropic drugs. The multidisciplinary character of the guideline was experienced positively. However, IDPs are faced with organisational barriers and time constraints, as such, they question the feasibility of implementing the Act. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the Care and Coercion Act may support the existing shift towards the appropriate use of psychotropic drugs if required conditions can be met.

COVID-19 and Compulsory Vaccination: An Acceptable Form of Coercion?

The paper considers whether the British Government could make receiving a COVID-19 vaccine effectively legally mandatory. After considering the position in English law, it considers the ethical position regarding involuntary vaccination, and concludes that while there is no legal impediment to such a requirement, it is ethically unsound.

Weaponizing COVID-19: How the Pandemic Influenced the Behavior of Those Who Use Violence in Domestic and Family Relationships.

COVID-19 has increased threats to women's safety in Australia and globally. This research is based on a 2020 nationwide survey about the impacts of COVID-19 on domestic and family violence (DFV) services and allied sectors throughout Australia. This study focuses on how perpetrator behaviors-coercion, control, and violence-changed and intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two central themes identified from this qualitative analysis were the increase in complexity and severity of DFV during COVID-19. The analysis highlights how perpetrator behavior reflects the weaponizing of COVID-19 against women and children. The article concludes with a discussion about the theoretical, practice, and policy implications.

Digital Technologies and Coercion in Psychiatry.

Psychiatry has a contentious history of coercion in the care of patients with mental illness, and legal frameworks often govern use of coercive interventions, such as involuntary hospitalization, physical restraints, and medication over objection. Research also suggests that informal coercion, including subtle inducements, leverage, or threats, is prevalent and influential in psychiatric settings. Digital technologies bring promise for expanding access to psychiatric care and improving delivery of these services; however, use and misuse of digital technologies, such as electronic medical record flags, surveillance cameras, videoconferencing, and risk assessment tools, could lead to unexpected coercion of patients with mental illness. Using several composite case examples, the author proposes that the integration of digital technologies into psychiatric care can influence patients' experiences of coercion and provides recommendations for studying and addressing these effects.

Addressing long-acting reversible contraception access, bias, and coercion: supporting adolescent and young adult reproductive autonomy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is comprised of highly effective methods (the subdermal implant and intrauterine devices) available to adolescents and young adults (AYAs). Professional medical societies endorse LARC use in AYAs and, more recently, have emphasized the importance of using a reproductive justice framework when providing LARC. This article reviews reproductive justice, discusses contraceptive coercion, examines bias, and highlights interventions that promote equitable reproductive healthcare. RECENT FINDINGS: Research indicates that both bias and patient characteristics influence provider LARC practices. AYA access to comprehensive LARC services is limited, as counseling, provision, management, and removal are not offered at all sites providing reproductive healthcare to AYAs. Interventions aimed at addressing provider bias and knowledge, clinic policies, confidentiality concerns, insurance reimbursement, and systems of oppression can improve AYA access to equitable, comprehensive contraceptive care. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequities in reproductive healthcare, as well as provided unique innovations to decrease barriers, including telemedicine LARC services. SUMMARY: Clinicians who care for AYAs should honor reproductive autonomy by approaching contraceptive services with a reproductive justice lens. This includes implementing patient-centered contraceptive counseling, increasing access to LARC, eliminating barriers to LARC removal, and committing to systemic changes to address healthcare inequities.

Democracy, Capacity, and Coercion in Pandemic Response: COVID-19 in Comparative Political Perspective.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged governments around the world. It also has challenged conventional wisdom and empirical understandings in the comparative politics and policy of health. Three major questions present themselves: First, some of the countries considered to be most prepared-having the greatest capacity for outbreak response-have failed to respond effectively to the pandemic. How should our understanding of capacity shift in light of COVID-19, and how can we incorporate political capacity into thinking about pandemic preparedness? Second, several of the mechanisms through which democracy has been shown to be beneficial for health have not traveled well to explain the performance of governments in this pandemic. Is there an authoritarian advantage in disease response? Third, after decades in which coercive public health measures have increasingly been considered counterproductive, COVID-19 has inspired widespread embrace of rigid lockdowns, isolation, and quarantine enforced by police. Will these measures prove effective in the long run and reshape public health thinking? This article explores some of these questions with emerging examples, even amid the pandemic, when it is too soon to draw conclusions.

COVID-19 welbeing study: a protocol examining perceived coercion and psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic by means of an online survey, asynchronous virtual focus groups and individual interviews.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many countries applying restrictive measures, such as lockdown, to contain and prevent further spread. The psychological impact of lockdown and working as a healthcare worker on the frontline has been chronicled in studies pertaining to previous infectious disease pandemics that have reported the presence of depressive symptoms, anxiety, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Potentially linked to psychological well-being and not yet studied is the possibility that lockdown and working on the frontline of the pandemic are associated with perceptions of coercion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present study aimed to examine perceived coercion in those who have experienced COVID-19-related lockdown and/or worked as a frontline healthcare worker across three European countries. It aimed to describe how such perceptions may impact on psychological well-being, coping and post-traumatic growth. It will employ an explanatory mixed-methods research methodology consisting of an online survey and online asynchronous virtual focus groups (AVFGs) and individual interviews. χ2 tests and analyses of variance will be used to examine whether participants from different countries differ according to demographic factors, whether there are differences between cohorts on perceived coercion, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic growth scores. The relationship between coercion and symptoms of distress will be assessed using multiple regression. Both the AVFGs and the narrative interviews will be analysed using thematic narrative analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by University College London's Research Ethics Committee under Project ID Number 7335/004. Results will be disseminated by means of peer-reviewed publications and at national and/or international conferences.

Global Ethical Considerations Regarding Mandatory Vaccination in Children.

Whether children should be vaccinated against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) (or other infectious diseases such as influenza) and whether some degree of coercion should be exercised by the state to ensure high uptake depends, among other things, on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. For COVID-19, these factors are currently unknown for children, with unanswered questions also on children's role in the transmission of the virus, the extent to which the vaccine will decrease transmission, and the expected benefit (if any) to the child. Ultimately, deciding whether to recommend that children receive a novel vaccine for a disease that is not a major threat to them, or to mandate the vaccine, requires precise information on the risks, including disease severity and vaccine safety and effectiveness, a comparative evaluation of the alternatives, and the levels of coercion associated with each. However, the decision also requires balancing self-interest with duty to others, and liberty with usefulness. Separate to ensuring vaccine supply and access, we outline 3 requirements for mandatory vaccination from an ethical perspective: (1) whether the disease is a grave threat to the health of children and to public health, (2) positive comparative expected usefulness of mandatory vaccination, and (3) proportionate coercion. We also suggest that the case for mandatory vaccine in children may be strong in the case of influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the human rights of persons with mental and cognitive impairments subject to coercive powers in Australia.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the human rights of persons with mental and cognitive impairments subject to coercive powers in Australia. It sets out the relevant human rights in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which have been engaged by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government's response to it. It examines the effect of emergency legislation on the relaxation of human rights safeguards in mental health laws, with a focus on mental health tribunals (although it is limited by a lack of published decisions and gaps in publicly available information). However, some of the issues created for persons with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic are evident in some decisions published by the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal. The paper critically analyses two guardianship decisions UZX [2020] NSWCATGD 3 (3 April, 2020) and GZK [2020] NSWCATGD 5 (23 April, 2020) and some emergency South Australian legislation COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, 2020 (SA) Schedule 1 to demonstrate the ways in which the human rights of persons with mental and cognitive impairments can be more at risk than those of the general population, even when the general population is itself in "lockdown."

The Ethics of Everyday Life in the Midst of a Pandemic.

Elderly individuals are at higher risk of serious illness and death if they become infected by the coronavirus. During the current pandemic, my wife and I, at ages seventy-two and seventy-one, respectively, have been paying a person laid off from a job to purchase groceries-a practice that exposes the shopper to risk of infection for our benefit. In this essay, I examine this practice with respect to the normative concepts of treating another person as a means, coercion, exploitation, and complicity.