Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control
Other content recommended for you
- Spoonful of honey or a gallon of vinegar? A conditional COVID-19 vaccination policy for front-line healthcare workers
- Neurointerventions and informed consent
- Covid-19: Is the UK heading towards mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers?
- Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers beyond COVID-19
- Navigating individual and collective interests in medical ethics
- Ethics of vaccine refusal
- Should covid vaccination be mandatory for health and care staff?
- Brain injury and deprivation of liberty on neurosciences wards: ‘a gilded cage is still a cage’
- Case for persuasion in parental informed consent to promote rational vaccine choices
- Simple rationality? The law of healthcare resource allocation in England
Jump to comment:
While the authors are right to conclude that any compulsory medical intervention/vaccination could only be justified if the intervention is safe, effective, proportional and necessary, the moral dilemma really only starts here.
Who should have the right to determine what is proportional and necessary? Furthermore, the safety and efficacy in themselves will be disputed. We know this from existing vaccine controversies that lead parents to decline vaccines for their children. They do not trust the data produced by the manufacturers and they do not trust anyone who has industry funding or other potential conflicts of interest. Clearly the only reason why a parent would decline a medical intervention is because they fear that it could harm their child.
Although a Covid19 vaccine would not mainly be aimed at children, as in routine childhood immunisations, but at everyone, the question of safety and efficacy remains and invariably determines the question of proportionality as well. In fact it will be even more difficult, due to the shorter development times, shorter trial lengths and shorter follow-ups we can expect, as well as the limited time the virus is expected to be around in sufficient parts of the population that would allow for meaningful field trials.
Safety and efficacy have always been at the heart of the debate. We know from our work with parents at Consent (https://consent-charity.org.uk) that any...Show More