Nursing vaccine mandates: Ethically justified, an infringement on autonomy, or both?

After almost a year and a half of the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare institutions in the United States announced that they would mandate COVID-19 vaccination, with medical and religious exceptions, as a term of employment. The mandates resulted in widely publicized protests from hospital staff, including some nurses, who argued that these medical institutions violated the ethical principle of autonomy. As the world enters the "post-pandemic period," decisions such as these, made during times of crisis, must be reviewed to provide clarity for when the next pandemic occurs. In this paper, we support the argument that such mandates are ethically justifiable. We explore the framework of objections that were brought forward by dissenters of this vaccine mandate. Next, we provide an analysis of conflicting ethical principles present when such mandates were deployed. Utilizing the American Nurses Association's Code of Ethics for Nurses, notably provisions 2, 3, and 6 we argue that it is an ethical duty of the nurse to be vaccinated. Specifically, we turn to provision two, which most explicitly underscores the necessity of vaccination as a function of the nurse's primary commitment to the patient. Next, we highlight the International Council of Nurses Code of Ethics which provides similar guidance internationally. Finally, we examine the applicability of the principles of public health, care ethics, and the nursing role as frameworks to underpin such mandates both for the current and for potential future pandemics, arguing that the nurse's ethical duty to be vaccinated spans these contexts.

Integrating Public Health Ethics into Public Health Policymaking: Being in the Room Where It Happens.

This commentary takes up a challenge posed by Franklin Miller in a 2022 essay in Bioethics Forum. Dr. Miller queried whether bioethicists could be useful in public health policy contexts and while he refrained from issuing an ultimate opinion, did identify several challenges to such utility. The current piece responds to the challenges Dr. Miller identifies and argues that with appropriate training, public health ethicists can be of service in virtually any context in which public health policies are deliberated and decided.

Beyond Trade-Offs: Autonomy, Effectiveness, Fairness, and Normativity in Risk and Crisis Communication.

This paper addresses the critiques based on trade-offs and normativity presented in response to our target article proposing the Public Health Emergency Risk and Crisis Communication (PHERCC) framework. These critiques highlight the ethical dilemmas in crisis communication, particularly the balance between promoting public autonomy through transparent information and the potential stigmatization of specific population groups, as illustrated by the discussion of the mpox outbreak among men who have sex with men. This critique underscores the inherent tension between communication effectiveness and autonomy versus fairness and equity. In response, our paper reiterates the adaptability of the PHERCC framework, emphasizing its capacity to tailor messages to diverse audiences, thereby reducing potential stigmatization and misinformation. Through community engagement and feedback integration, the PHERCC framework aims to optimize the effectiveness of communication strategies while addressing ethical concerns. Furthermore, by involving affected communities in the communication strategy from the onset, the framework seeks to minimize ethical trade-offs and enhance the acceptance and effectiveness of public health messages.

Stewardship according to context: Justifications for coercive antimicrobial stewardship policies in agriculture and their limitations.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent, global threat to public health. The development and implementation of effective measures to address AMR is vitally important but presents important ethical questions. This is a policy area requiring further sustained attention to ensure that policies proposed in National Action Plans on AMR are ethically acceptable and preferable to alternatives that might be fairer or more effective, for instance. By ethically analysing case studies of coercive actions to address AMR across countries, we can better inform policy in a context-specific manner. In this article, I consider an example of coercive antimicrobial stewardship policy in Canada, namely restrictions on livestock farmers' access to certain antibiotics for animal use without a vet's prescription. I introduce and analyse two ethical arguments that might plausibly justify coercive action in this case: the harm principle and a duty of collective easy rescue. In addition, I consider the factors that might generally limit the application of those ethical concepts, such as challenges in establishing causation or evidencing the scale of the harm to be averted. I also consider specifics of the Canadian context in contrast to the UK and Botswana as example settings, to demonstrate how context-specific factors might mean a coercive policy that is ethically justified in one country is not so in another.

The Ethics of Time: Towards Temporal Bioethics.

In this paper I discuss the important yet overlooked role played by time in public health ethics, clinical ethics, and personal ethics, and present an exploratory analysis of temporal inequalities and temporal autonomy.

Social Distance Warriors Should Not Be Regarded as Moral Exemplars in a Pandemic Nor as Paragons of Politeness: A Response to Shaw.

In a recent article, Shaw contrasts his own supposed good behaviour, as that of a self-proclaimed "social distance warrior" with the alleged rude behaviour of one of his relatives, Jack, at social events in the former's house in Scotland in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. He does so to illustrate and support his claims that it was wrong and rude to fail to comply with the governmental advice regarding social distancing because we had a responsibility "to minimize risk" and not wrong nor rude to challenge and cajole those people who failed to do so. This article shows that his claims are contestable. It suggests that his own behaviour was no better than Jack's.

Digital Humans to Combat Loneliness and Social Isolation: Ethics Concerns and Policy Recommendations.

Social isolation and loneliness are growing concerns around the globe that put people at increased risk of disease and early death. One much-touted approach to addressing them is deploying artificially intelligent agents to serve as companions for socially isolated and lonely people. Focusing on digital humans, we consider evidence and ethical arguments for and against this approach. We set forth and defend public health policies that respond to concerns about replacing humans, establishing inferior relationships, algorithmic bias, distributive justice, and data privacy.

Cause for coercion: cause for concern?

In his 2000 book, From Chaos to Coercion: Detention and the Control of Tuberculosis, Richard Coker makes a number of important observations and arguments regarding the use of coercive public health measures in response to infectious disease threats. In particular, Coker argues that we have a tendency to neglect public health threats and then demand immediate action, which can leave policymakers with fewer effective options and may require (or may be perceived as requiring) more aggressive, coercive measures to achieve public health goals. While Coker makes a convincing case as to why we should find it ethically problematic when governments find themselves in this position and resort to coercion, left outstanding is the question of whether this should preclude governments and health authorities from using coercion if and when they do find themselves in this position. In this paper, I argue that, while we should consider it ethically objectionable when governments resort to coercion because they have neglected a public health threat, its causes, and other possible responses to that threat, this should not then necessarily rule out the use of coercion in such circumstances; that there are ethically objectionable antecedents for why coercion is being considered should not necessarily or automatically cause us to think coercion in such cases cannot be justified. I address an objection to this argument and draw several conclusions about how governments' use of coercion in public health should be evaluated.

A Scalar Approach to Vaccination Ethics.

Should people get vaccinated for the sake of others? What could ground-and limit-the normative claim that people ought to do so? In this paper, we propose a reasons-based consequentialist account of vaccination for the benefit of others. We outline eight harm-based and probabilistic factors that, we argue, give people moral reasons to get vaccinated. Instead of understanding other-directed vaccination in terms of binary moral duties (i.e., where people either have or do not have a moral duty to get vaccinated), we develop a scalar approach according to which people can have stronger or weaker moral reasons to get vaccinated in view of the moral good of vaccination. One advantage of our approach is that it can capture why a person might have strong moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine A, but only weak moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine B. We discuss theoretical strengths of our approach and provide a case study of vaccination against COVID-19 to demonstrate its practical significance.

'Staying in the lane' of public health? Boundary-work in the roles of state health officials and experts in COVID-19 policymaking.

The state-level COVID-19 response in the United States necessitated collaboration between governor' offices, health departments and numerous other departments and outside experts. To gain insight into how health officials and experts contributed to advising on COVID-19 policies, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 individuals with a health specialisation who were involved in COVID-19 policymaking, taking place between February and December 2022. We found two diverging understandings of the role of health officials and experts in COVID-19 policymaking: the role of 'staying in the lane' of public health in terms of the information that they collected, their advocacy for policies and their area of expertise and the role of engaging in the balancing of multiple considerations, such as public health, feasibility and competing objectives (such as the economy) in the crafting of pandemic policy. We draw on the concept of boundary-work to examine how these roles were constructed. We conclude by considering the appropriateness as well as the ethical implications of these two approaches to public health policymaking.

Proposing a Principle-Based Approach for Teaching AI Ethics in Medical Education.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, potentially leading to substantial advancements such as improved diagnostics, has been of increasing scientific and societal interest in recent years. However, the use of AI raises new ethical challenges, such as an increased risk of bias and potential discrimination against patients, as well as misdiagnoses potentially leading to over- or underdiagnosis with substantial consequences for patients. Recognizing these challenges, current research underscores the importance of integrating AI ethics into medical education. This viewpoint paper aims to introduce a comprehensive set of ethical principles for teaching AI ethics in medical education. This dynamic and principle-based approach is designed to be adaptive and comprehensive, addressing not only the current but also emerging ethical challenges associated with the use of AI in medicine. This study conducts a theoretical analysis of the current academic discourse on AI ethics in medical education, identifying potential gaps and limitations. The inherent interconnectivity and interdisciplinary nature of these anticipated challenges are illustrated through a focused discussion on "informed consent" in the context of AI in medicine and medical education. This paper proposes a principle-based approach to AI ethics education, building on the 4 principles of medical ethics-autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice-and extending them by integrating 3 public health ethics principles-efficiency, common good orientation, and proportionality. The principle-based approach to teaching AI ethics in medical education proposed in this study offers a foundational framework for addressing the anticipated ethical challenges of using AI in medicine, recommended in the current academic discourse. By incorporating the 3 principles of public health ethics, this principle-based approach ensures that medical ethics education remains relevant and responsive to the dynamic landscape of AI integration in medicine. As the advancement of AI technologies in medicine is expected to increase, medical ethics education must adapt and evolve accordingly. The proposed principle-based approach for teaching AI ethics in medical education provides an important foundation to ensure that future medical professionals are not only aware of the ethical dimensions of AI in medicine but also equipped to make informed ethical decisions in their practice. Future research is required to develop problem-based and competency-oriented learning objectives and educational content for the proposed principle-based approach to teaching AI ethics in medical education.

The Ethics of Population Policy for the Two Worlds of Population Conditions.

Population policy has taken two divergent trajectories. In the developing part of the world, controlling population growth has been a major tune of the debate more than a half-century ago. In the more developed part of the world, an inverse pattern results in the discussion over the facilitation of population growth. The ethical debates on population policy have primarily focused on the former and ignored the latter. This paper proposes a more comprehensive account that justifies states' population policy interventions. We first consider the reasons that support pro-natalist policies to enhance fertility rates and argue that these policies are ethically problematic. We then establish an ethics of population policy grounded on account of self-sustaining the body politic, which consists of four criteria: survival, replacement, accountability, and solidarity. We discuss the implications of this account regarding birth-control and pro-natalist policies, as well as non-procreative policies such as immigration, adoption, and unintended baby-saving strategies.

The PHERCC Matrix. An Ethical Framework for Planning, Governing, and Evaluating Risk and Crisis Communication in the Context of Public Health Emergencies.

Risk and crisis communication (RCC) is a current ethical issue subject to controversy, mainly due to the tension between individual liberty (a core component of fairness) and effectiveness. In this paper we propose a consistent definition of the RCC process in public health emergencies (PHERCC), which comprises six key elements: evidence, initiator, channel, publics, message, and feedback. Based on these elements and on a detailed analysis of their role in PHERCC, we present an ethical framework to help design, govern and evaluate PHERCC strategies. The framework aims to facilitate RCC, incorporating effectiveness, autonomy, and fairness. It comprises five operational ethical principles: openness, transparency, inclusivity, understandability, and privacy. The resulting matrix helps understanding the interplay between the PHERCC process and the principles of the framework. The paper includes suggestions and recommendations for the implementation of the PHERCC matrix.

Building solidarity during COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS.

While the WHO, public health experts, and political leaders have referenced solidarity as an important part of our responses to COVID-19, I consider how we build solidarity during pandemics in order to improve the effectiveness of our responses. I use Prainsack and Buyx's definition of solidarity, which highlights three different tiers: (1) interpersonal solidarity, (2) group solidarity, and (3) institutional solidarity. Each tier of solidarity importantly depends on the actions and norms established at the lower tiers. Although empathy and solidarity are distinct moral concepts, I argue that the affective component of solidarity is important for motivating solidaristic action, and empathetic accounts of solidarity help us understand how we actually build solidarity from tier to tier. During pandemics, public health responses draw on different tiers of solidarity depending on the nature, scope, and timeline of the pandemic. Therefore, I analyze both COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS using this framework to learn lessons about how solidarity can more effectively contribute to our ongoing public health responses during pandemics. Whereas we used institutional solidarity during COVID-19 in a top-down approach to building solidarity that often overlooked interpersonal and group solidarity, we used those lower tiers during HIV/AIDS in a bottom-up approach because governments and public health institutions were initially unresponsive to the crisis. Thus, we need to ensure that we have a strong foundation of respect, trust, and so forth, on which to build solidarity from tier to tier and promote whichever tiers of solidarity are lacking during a given pandemic to improve our responses.

Toward Consent in Molecular HIV Surveillance?: Perspectives of Critical Stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs as key features of the United States (US) HIV strategy since 2018 has caused major controversies. HIV surveillance programs that re-use individuals' routinely collected clinical HIV data do not require consent on the basis that the public benefit of these programs outweighs individuals' rights to opt out. However, criticisms of MHS/CDR have questioned whether expanded uses of HIV genetic sequence data for prevention reach beyond traditional public health ethics frameworks. This study aimed to explore views on consent within MHS/CDR among critical stakeholders. METHODS: In 2021 we interviewed 26 US HIV stakeholders who identified as being critical or concerned about the rollout of MHS/CDR. Stakeholders included participants belonging to networks of people living with HIV, other advocates, academics, and public health professionals. This analysis focused on identifying the range of positions among critical and concerned stakeholders on consent affordances, opt-outs, how to best inform people living with HIV about how data about them are used in public health programs, and related ethical issues. RESULTS: Participants were broadly supportive of introducing some forms of consent into MHS/CDR. However, they differed on the specifics of implementing consent. While some participants did not support introducing consent affordances, all supported the idea that people living with HIV should be informed about how HIV surveillance and prevention is conducted and how individuals' data are used. CONCLUSIONS: MHS/CDR has caused sustained controversy. Among critical stakeholders, consent is generally desirable but contested, although the right for people living with HIV to be informed was centrally supported. In an era of big data-driven public health interventions and routine uses of HIV genetic sequence data in surveillance and prevention, CDC and other agencies should revisit public health ethics frameworks and consider the possibility of consent processes.

Reflection on Global Public Health Ethics from the Perspective of Community / 中国医学伦理学

The global spread of COVID -19 indicates that cultivating public health awareness and constructing the concept of human health community has become an urgent need and a long-term plan in the current social situation. In the post-epidemic period, only by adhering to the concept of human health community, strengthening the cooperation among individuals, families, communities, institutions, urban and rural areas, countries and so on, weaving closely and consolidating the "net bottom" of grass-roots prevention and control from point to area, and establishing the mechanism of group prevention, group control and joint prevention and control, can we thoroughly curb the spread of the epidemic in the world. Under the development concept and value orientation of human health community, the individual is not only a booster of public health, but also a component of public health, and also a beneficiary of public health. The realization of public health is inseparable from the practice of each individual. Under the guidance of the concept of human health community and the awareness of individual health first responsibility, all citizens need to shape health promotion behaviors that fit the individual’s own situation, promote the health maintenance atmosphere consciously followed by the whole society, create a healthy ecological environment accessible to everyone, and let all citizens share the good results of public health management, so as to achieve the good vision of human health community.

Ethical Consideration of Chinese Ancient Disasters and Diseases: Centered on the Basic Principles of Public Health Ethics / 中国医学伦理学

The ethical problems in the prevention and control of public disasters and epidemics have attracted more and more attention. Briefly combed the disaster and epidemic events in ancient China. From the view of the several basic principles of public health ethics, this paper took four aspects of the distribution of medical and health resources for epidemic diseases, the isolation prevention and control, the skeleton convergence and the protection of public health conditions as examples, to dialectically treat the measures taken by ancient people to deal with disasters and epidemics and explore some enlightenment of public health ethics in ancient Chinese disasters and epidemics. The measures of epidemic prevention and disaster resistance in ancient China have their own formation and development process. Although the historical limitations are insurmountable, interpreting it by using the basic principles of public health ethics will help us understand the development process of epidemic prevention and control, promote the development of medical archaeology, and provide some reference for the construction of public health undertakings today.

Ethics in infectious diseases: latent challenges. Part I.

Infectious diseases socially imply individual and community medical problems. Therefore, they require actions aimed at social processes that affect the well-being of the individuals without losing sight of social groups. Faced with this panorama, we ask ourselves: is there a direct relationship between ethics and infectious diseases? To elucidate an answer, let us remember the peak period of the COVID-19 pandemic when guidelines based on ethical principles were issued to facilitate medical decisions on allocating scarce resources in periods of maximum demand. In those moments, since there was no inclusive component of society, the decisions made produced massive criticism. The reactions demonstrated the need to analyze in detail the criteria that had been considered correct. Consequently, we affirm that bioethical principles are transcendental in medical decisions and must be examined, not only for the individual but also with a view to public health. Moreover, the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic has lived with us for decades, and it continues to show its tragic face in the form of new cases, chronic illnesses, and deaths. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS brings us closer to a complex reality where the fight against disease and global health are interrelated with other problems, such as the need to reduce inequality, for which human rights, gender equality, social protection, and the development of research projects, where the ethics committees in research in community processes are constituents.

Las enfermedades infecciosas implican problemas médicos individuales y comunitarios, por lo que requieren acciones dirigidas a procesos sociales que incidan en el bienestar de los individuos, sin perder de vista a los grupos sociales. Nos preguntamos: ¿existe relación directa entre la ética y las enfermedades infecciosas? Para dilucidar una respuesta, recordemos el periodo más álgido de la pandemia por COVID-19, cuando se emitieron guías fundamentadas en principios éticos para facilitar las decisiones médicas en la asignación de recursos escasos en periodos de máxima demanda. Al no haber un componente inclusivo con la sociedad, las decisiones que se tomaron produjeron críticas masivas, que demostraron la necesidad de analizar a detalle los criterios que se habían considerado correctos. En consecuencia, afirmamos que los principios bioéticos son trascendentales en las decisiones médicas y deben ser examinados, no solo frente al individuo, sino de cara a la salud pública (bien común e individualidad). Por otra parte, la epidemia del SIDA (síndrome de inmunodeficiencia adquirida) convive con nosotros desde hace décadas. ONUSIDA (Programa Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas sobre el VIH/SIDA) nos acerca una realidad compleja, como es que la lucha contra la enfermedad y por la salud global se interrelaciona con otros problemas como la necesidad de reducer la desigualdad, por los derechos humanos, la igualdad de género, la protección social y el desarrollo de proyectos de investigación, donde los comités de Ética en investigación en procesos comunitarios son constituyentes.

Ethics in infectious diseases: latent challenges. Part I / Ética en enfermedades infecciosas: retos latentes. Parte I

Abstract Infectious diseases socially imply individual and community medical problems. Therefore, they require actions aimed at social processes that affect the well-being of the individuals without losing sight of social groups. Faced with this panorama, we ask ourselves: is there a direct relationship between ethics and infectious diseases? To elucidate an answer, let us remember the peak period of the COVID-19 pandemic when guidelines based on ethical principles were issued to facilitate medical decisions on allocating scarce resources in periods of maximum demand. In those moments, since there was no inclusive component of society, the decisions made produced massive criticism. The reactions demonstrated the need to analyze in detail the criteria that had been considered correct. Consequently, we affirm that bioethical principles are transcendental in medical decisions and must be examined, not only for the individual but also with a view to public health. Moreover, the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic has lived with us for decades, and it continues to show its tragic face in the form of new cases, chronic illnesses, and deaths. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS brings us closer to a complex reality where the fight against disease and global health are interrelated with other problems, such as the need to reduce inequality, for which human rights, gender equality, social protection, and the development of research projects, where the ethics committees in research in community processes are constituents.

Resumen Las enfermedades infecciosas implican problemas médicos individuales y comunitarios, por lo que requieren acciones dirigidas a procesos sociales que incidan en el bienestar de los individuos, sin perder de vista a los grupos sociales. Nos preguntamos: ¿existe relación directa entre la ética y las enfermedades infecciosas? Para dilucidar una respuesta, recordemos el periodo más álgido de la pandemia por COVID-19, cuando se emitieron guías fundamentadas en principios éticos para facilitar las decisiones médicas en la asignación de recursos escasos en periodos de máxima demanda. Al no haber un componente inclusivo con la sociedad, las decisiones que se tomaron produjeron críticas masivas, que demostraron la necesidad de analizar a detalle los criterios que se habían considerado correctos. En consecuencia, afirmamos que los principios bioéticos son trascendentales en las decisiones médicas y deben ser examinados, no solo frente al individuo, sino de cara a la salud pública (bien común e individualidad). Por otra parte, la epidemia del SIDA (síndrome de inmunodeficiencia adquirida) convive con nosotros desde hace décadas. ONUSIDA (Programa Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas sobre el VIH/SIDA) nos acerca una realidad compleja, como es que la lucha contra la enfermedad y por la salud global se interrelaciona con otros problemas como la necesidad de reducer la desigualdad, por los derechos humanos, la igualdad de género, la protección social y el desarrollo de proyectos de investigación, donde los comités de Ética en investigación en procesos comunitarios son constituyentes.

[Live-ins: A mapping of relevant actors and moral norms at the public health level]. / Live-Ins: Eine Kartierung relevanter Akteur_innen und moralischer Normen auf der Public-Health-Ebene.

Live-ins: A mapping of relevant actors and moral norms at the public health level Abstract: Background: Live-ins are embedded in a network of multiple actors that shape their current working and living situation. The causes and effects of live-in arrangements go far beyond the actual care relationship and include structures and stakeholders that are interconnected at the Public Health level. Besides a legal responsibility, these actors also have a moral responsibility, which the article focuses on. Aim: The article provides an overview of relevant actors and moral norms in the context of live-ins at the public health level. Methods: The method followed the "Context and Actor Analysis". Actors at the public health level that are relevant for the live-ins' situation were identified, and the responsibilities and tasks presented in their websites as well as their respective target groups were collected. The ethical dimension was extracted from these self-descriptions. Results: The 23 actors address the live-ins directly or indirectly in their various social roles. The self-given tasks and the moral norms deduced from them, for which the actors are particularly responsible, illustrate the importance of justice and respect. Conclusions: The work provides the basis for an urgently needed empirical-ethical analysis on the current state of responsibility-taking. Not only the variety of the live-ins' roles, but also the multitude of actors involved and shared norms illustrate the necessity of close cooperation to be able to fulfil their responsibility.