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.

The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada.

Widespread misperceptions about COVID-19 and the novel coronavirus threaten to exacerbate the severity of the pandemic. We conducted preregistered survey experiments in the United States, Great Britain and Canada examining the effectiveness of fact-checks that seek to correct these false or unsupported beliefs. Across three countries with differing levels of political conflict over the pandemic response, we demonstrate that fact-checks reduce targeted misperceptions, especially among the groups who are most vulnerable to these claims, and have minimal spillover effects on the accuracy of related beliefs. However, these reductions in COVID-19 misperception beliefs do not persist over time in panel data even after repeated exposure. These results suggest that fact-checks can successfully change the COVID-19 beliefs of the people who would benefit from them most but that their effects are ephemeral.

'Us-Versus-Them': Othering in COVID-19 public health behavior compliance.

OBJECTIVE: We explored public perceptions about the COVID-19 pandemic to learn how those attitudes may affect compliance with health behaviors. METHODS: Participants were Central Pennsylvania adults from diverse backgrounds purposively sampled (based on race, gender, educational attainment, and healthcare worker status) who responded to a mixed methods survey, completed between March 25-31, 2020. Four open-ended questions were analyzed, including: "What worries you most about the COVID-19 pandemic?" We applied a pragmatic, inductive coding process to conduct a qualitative, descriptive content analysis of responses. RESULTS: Of the 5,948 respondents, 538 were sampled for this qualitative analysis. Participants were 58% female, 56% with ≥ bachelor's degree, and 50% from minority racial backgrounds. Qualitative descriptive analysis revealed four themes related to respondents' health and societal concerns: lack of faith in others; fears of illness or death; frustration at perceived slow societal response; and a desire for transparency in communicating local COVID-19 information. An "us-versus-them" subtext emerged; participants attributed non-compliance with COVID-19 behaviors to other groups, setting themselves apart from those Others. CONCLUSION: Our study uncovered Othering undertones in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, occurring between groups of like-minded individuals with behavioral differences in 'compliance' versus 'non-compliance' with public health recommendations. Addressing the 'us-versus-them' mentality may be important for boosting compliance with recommended health behaviors.

Public health ethics and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Health is a human right anchored in values as a basic necessity of life. It promotes the well-being of persons, communities, economic prosperity, and national development. The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caught the world unaware and unprepared. It presented a huge challenge to the health and economic systems of every country. Across the spectrum of human endeavor and liberty, several ethical questions have been raised with regard to its management, particularly the public health control measures. Decisions for pandemic control measures are made under difficult circumstances driven by urgency and panic, with uncertainties and complexities for public goods over individual rights. Global solidarity in controlling the pandemic is being tested. National governments have the responsibility to protect public health on the grounds of common good. Political considerations should not be the basis for decision-making against the best available epidemiological data from pandemic disease dynamics. Hence, the need to adhere to the values of honesty, trust, human dignity, solidarity, reciprocity, accountability, transparency, and justice are major considerations. A literature search was conducted for the publications from academic databases and websites of health-relevant organizations. I discuss the ethical questions and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of public health control measures using the standard ethical principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and social (distributive) justice. It is observed that, at the country level, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines are used to control the pandemic. As WHO through the COVAX strategy distributes the vaccines to less developed countries, a lot still needs to be done to address the complex bottlenecks of allocation and distribution. There is a need to ensure acceptable and transparent system that promotes cooperation, equitable access, and fair distribution of vaccines on a global scale.

Résumé La santé est un droit humain ancré dans des valeurs en tant que nécessité fondamentale de la vie. Elle favorise le bien-être des personnes, des collectivités, la prospérité économique et le développement national. La pandémie de COVID-19 a pris le monde au dépourvu et au dépourvu. Cela représente un énorme défi pour les systèmes de santé et économiques de chaque pays. Dans tout le spectre de l'activité humaine et de la liberté, plusieurs questions éthiques ont été soulevées concernant sa gestion, en particulier les mesures de contrôle de la santé publique. Les décisions concernant les mesures de lutte contre la pandémie sont prises dans des circonstances difficiles motivées par l'urgence et la panique, avec des incertitudes et des complexités pour les biens publics plutôt que les droits individuels. La solidarité mondiale dans la lutte contre la pandémie est mise à l'épreuve. Les gouvernements nationaux ont la responsabilité de protéger la santé publique au nom du bien commun. Les considérations politiques ne devraient pas être la base de la prise de décision par rapport aux meilleures données épidémiologiques disponibles sur la dynamique des maladies pandémiques. Ainsi, la nécessité d'adhérer aux valeurs d'honnêteté, de confiance, de dignité humaine, de solidarité, de réciprocité, de responsabilité, de transparence et de justice sont des considérations majeures. Une recherche documentaire a été menée pour les publications des bases de données universitaires et des sites Web d'organisations liées à la santé. Je discute des questions éthiques et des défis de la pandémie de COVID-19 dans le contexte des mesures de contrôle de la santé publique en utilisant les principes éthiques standard de respect de l'autonomie, de la bienfaisance, de la non-malfaisance et de la justice sociale (distributive). On constate qu'au niveau des pays, les directives de l'OMS sont utilisées pour contrôler la pandémie. Alors que l'OMS, via la stratégie COVAX, distribue les vaccins aux pays moins développés, il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour remédier aux goulots d'étranglement complexes de l'allocation et de la distribution. Il est nécessaire de garantir un système acceptable et transparent qui favorise la coopération, l'accès équitable et la distribution équitable des vaccins à l'échelle mondiale. critères d'attribution des vaccins COVID-19 dès qu'ils deviennent disponibles.

Convalescent plasma, political narrative, and public health ethics in the Covid-19 pandemic.

Convalescent plasma therapy emerged as an early experimental therapy for the treatment of Covid-19. However, despite limited data regarding its safety and efficacy, the therapy was extensively publicised by multiple politicians as a cure. We analyse the impact of this political narrative around medical therapeutics on the pandemic using the coherentist model of public health ethics. The clinical benefits of the therapy are evaluated in terms of reduction in mortality and disease progression as compared to the potential transfusion-related adverse events. Political advocacy of therapeutics might hamper the autonomy and decision-making of individuals and institutions. Marketing and monetisation of convalescent plasma might cause inequitable distribution and unregulated use. It also creates an economic burden on the government and healthcare which should be justified by the additional cost/effectiveness ratio of the therapy. This article exemplifies the inadvertent effects and ethical challenges following political narratives about medical therapeutics and the importance of involving ethics in designing policies concerning public healthcare.

Good public health logistics for resilient health systems during the pandemic: Lessons from Tamil Nadu.

The article highlights the importance of strengthening of public systems and the need for rapid scaling up of access to testing and to appropriate therapeutics in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, to have in place robust public procurement systems for drugs and diagnostics. The paper draws lessons from the Tamil Nadu experience and validates the understanding that investing in public institutions is essential for rapid responsiveness to pandemics and other public health emergencies from both the ethical and health systems points of view.

Evolving an ethical framework for Covid-19 management in India.

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused millions of cases and deaths worldwide and has caused a massive global economic contraction. Governments, policymakers, and medical professionals have been confronted with several complex bioethical dilemmas during these exceptional circumstances. In developing countries like India, having a large population base, inadequate preexisting public health infrastructure, and a multi-level government system with complex administrative mechanisms imposes enormous barriers and challenges in the effective and ethical management of the pandemic. Furthermore, endemic corruption, limited bureaucratic and organisational accountability, and weak oversight, especially among stakeholders in the vast private and non-government health and allied services sector, complicate the assessment of their adherence to ethical public health practices.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Implementing the Epidemic Diseases Act to combat Covid-19 in India: An ethical analysis.

Many states in India have invoked the provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, as a major tool in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic. The current review attempts to discuss the ethical challenges in implementation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, to combat Covid-19 in India. Implementation of the Act in India has exposed its major limitations. It remains merely as a "policing" Act with no emphasis on coordinated and scientific responses to outbreaks and without provisions for protecting the rights of citizens. The Epidemic Diseases Act in its current form has the potential to cause more harm than good. Furthermore, the Epidemic Disease (Amendment) Bill, 2020, has not addressed any of these concerns. There is need for a rights-based, people-focused and public health-oriented law in India to deal with epidemics.

Emergency use authorisation of Covid-19 vaccines: An ethical conundrum.

Large-scale vaccination with a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19 is the only way to conquer the ongoing lethal pandemic that has led to extraordinary social and economic upheaval globally. Fortunately, the world is on the verge of developing Covid-19 vaccines in an unprecedentedly short time. More than forty vaccines are in different stages of clinical trials, and a few are in the crucial phase III studies stage. A new demand for emergency use authorisation and rapid deployment of these vaccines before scrutinising phase III trial data is raging in different quarters. Can advancement of the deployment of these vaccines by even a few weeks give us rich public health dividends? Would it be ethical to deploy these novel vaccines based only on the safety and immunogenicity data generated by the phase-I and II clinical trials? Would it be ethical to deny vaccination of vulnerable populations against an untreatable infectious disease despite the availability of reasonably safe and efficacious vaccines for the want of phase III trial data? The answer is not straightforward, as there are many complexities involved. This commentary attempts to discuss some ethical issues involved in a decision to deploy Covid-19 vaccination before phase III trial results are declared.

The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.

Pandemic triage: ethical foundations for the allocation of advanced life support resources in scarcity scenario / El triaje en pandemia: fundamentos éticos para la asignación de recursos de soporte vital avanzado en escenarios de escasez

Las pandemias y otras catástrofes de alto impacto sanitario azotan periódicamente a la humanidad, aumentando desproporcionadamente la demanda por atención en servicios de urgencia, unidades de cuidados intensivos y medios de soporte vital avanzado. Este desequilibrio obliga a una compleja toma de decisiones en que se deben asignar recursos proporcionalmente escasos en relación a una gran demanda. Así, los equipos clínicos asistenciales necesitan actuar bajo criterios consensuados, que orienten sus decisiones y alivien la pesada carga moral de seleccionar pacientes para terapias, en detrimento de otros. El triaje es una estrategia que permite establecer, bajo racionalidades propias a cada escenario, objetivos y criterios que faciliten la toma de decisiones complejas para el logro del mejor resultado. Estas estrategias deben considerar el marco de valores intangibles que apreciamos y que nos identifican cultural y socialmente, como son el respeto a la vida, la igualdad, la justicia y la libertad. Sin embargo, en escenarios excepcionales como el de la actual pandemia COVID-19, en que el sistema sanitario puede no dar abasto, deberán establecerse objetivos prioritarios, como salvar la mayor cantidad de vidas, del modo más humano, justo y eficiente posible. A la vez, deberán redefinirse jerarquías en los valores y principios clásicos de la práctica clínica cotidiana, adecuadas a la catástrofe sanitaria, bajo una ética propia de la salud pública, el mayor bien para la mayoría y el mejor cuidado de los que no pueden ser curados.

Pandemics and other global disasters regularly overwhelm humankind. These catastrophic events suddenly increase demand for health-care in emergency services, intensive care units, and for advanced life support devices. This imbalance requires complex decision-making in which scarce resources must be allocated in relation to high demand. Thus, health-care teams need to act under consensus criteria that guide their decisions and alleviate the heavy moral burden of selecting patients for therapies, excluding others. Triage is a strategy that allows to establish, under appropriate rationalities, objectives and criteria that facilitate complex decisions to achieve the best results. These strategies should consider the framework of intangible values that we appreciate and identify us culturally and socially, such as respect for life, equity, justice and freedom. However, in exceptional scenarios such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, where the health system may be overcome, priority goals should focus in order to save as many lives as possible and by mean the most humane, fair and efficient way possible. At the same time, hierarchies of classical values and principles of daily clinical practice should be redefined in an appropriate way to face this catastrophic scenario, under an ethics for public health, the greatest good for the most and the best care of those who cannot be cured.

Liberty and Protection of Society During a Pandemic: Revisiting John Stuart Mill.

John Stuart Mill's classic text, On Liberty, maps the scope and limits on individual freedom. His "harm principle"-that liberty can be legitimately restricted by government or society only to prevent harm to others-has had a great influence on contemporary public health ethics. This essay examines Mill's philosophy of liberty as it pertains to public health interventions in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Particular applications include examination of face masks, lockdowns, and mandatory vaccination.