Vaccine Mandates: Weighing the Common Good vs Personal Conscience and Autonomy.

COVID-19 is a serious illness with significant morbidity and mortality. Vaccines to immunize against it were developed in record time. Mandates followed. The question to be considered is when mandates are ethical. Mandates can be used to prevent spread of an infection, prevent overwhelming the healthcare system, or protect public safety, thereby protecting the vulnerable and allowing for full flourishing of the common good. At the same time, one must be careful about respecting autonomy by allowing those who consciences do not allow them to be vaccinated to refuse. Because COVID-19 knowledge is rapidly changing as more information is known and the virus mutates, the conditions under which mandates are ethical change as well. At present, since vaccines prevent severe infection and death in high-risk individuals with added benefit for those who are vaccinated and have a history of infection, mandates can be imposed on those individuals. With an estimated 95% of the US population believed to have been infected and prior history of infection shown to be as effective as vaccination, with immunity lasting at least 500 days, and ability to prevent spread unknown at present but limited at best in the past, the vaccines therefore cannot be ethically mandated for those who are low risk for the versions released September 2023 based on information as of October 2023.

Referral vs Transfer of Care: Ethical Options When Values Differ.

Conscientious objection (CO) in medicine is where a healthcare professional (HCP) firmly opposes, with an expression of reasoned disapproval, a legally available procedure or treatment that is proscribed by one's conscience. While there remains controversy regarding whether conscientious objection should be a part of medicine, even among those who support CO state that if the HCP does not provide the requested service such as abortion, physician assisted suicide, etc., there is an obligation on the part of the objecting HCP to refer to someone who will provide it. However, referral makes the referring HCP complicit in the act the referrer believes to be immoral since the referrer has a duty to know that the HCP who will accept the patient is not only able to do the procedure but is competent in its performance as well. The referrer thus facilitates the process. Since one has a moral obligation to limit complicity with immoral actions when it cannot be avoided, the alternative is to allow the patient to transfer care to another when the patient has made the autonomous decision to reject the advice of the HCP.

Conscientious Objection, Not Refusal: The Power of a Word.

Conscientious objection (CO) in medicine grew out of the need to protect healthcare providers who objected to performing abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision in the 1970s which has since over time expanded to include sterilization, contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, and end-of-life issues. Since 2006, there has been a growing amount of published literature arguing for the denial of CO. Over the last three years, there has also been an increase in calling this conscientious refusal. This article will argue that the term conscientious objection is more accurate than conscientious refusal because those who object are not refusing to provide care. CO also emphasizes that there are reasoned arguments behind one's decision not to perform certain actions because of one's own principles and values. SUMMARY: How something is presented matters. Objection emphasizes the thought behind the action while refusal gives the impression that medical care is not given.

Stay-at-Home Orders and the Common Good.

COVID-19, also known as SARS-CoV-2, began in Wuhan, China, late November or early December, 2019 and has since spread rapidly throughout the globe, being declared a health emergency of international concern a month later and a pandemic on March 11, 2020. It is highly contagious with a death rate up to twelve times that of the flu, even higher where the healthcare systems have been strained. To reduce the spread, states have implemented stay-at-home declarations, limiting social gatherings, and closing churches. However, some have argued that churches are an "essential service" and should be reopened in order that the faithful to be able to receive the sacraments, in particular the Eucharist. I will argue that this goes against the Catholic doctrine of the common good and care for the poor and vulnerable. Summary: COVID-19 has caused a pandemic strained health care resources. In response, the US instituted stay-at-home orders which included the closing of places of worship. Within reason, this falls under the Catholic doctrine of the common good and caring for the poor and vulnerable.

Fertility Technology Research and the Use of Human Beings as Property.

In January 2020, an article in the Journal of Human Reproduction exploring whether human embryos could be obtained via uterine lavage and to compare their quality to embryos created via in vitro fertilization. Any embryo that was not removed via lavage was either prevented from implanting by giving the women injections of gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists or aborted with either methotrexate or uterine curettage. This research was done using women in Mexico, who were paid the equivalent of over two months' wages and who signed away their rights to their embryos, including agreeing to have an abortion if implantation did occur. Not only is this another instance of human beings being treated as property but is against the dignity of these women by turning them into, as one ethicist says, "human petri dishes." SUMMARY: Researchers continue to use people as objects to obtain their goals. In this case, it was poor women in Mexico and their embryos. The Editors of Journal of Human Reproduction enabled this by publishing the report.