Article Text
Abstract
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.
- behaviour modification
- coercion
- technology/risk assessment
- philosophical ethics
- public health ethics
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Supplementary materials
Footnotes
Contributors Sole authorship.
Funding JS is supported by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education. He received funding from the Wellcome Trust WT104848 and WT203132. Through his involvement with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, he has received funding through from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement No data are available.
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
Other content recommended for you
- Spoonful of honey or a gallon of vinegar? A conditional COVID-19 vaccination policy for front-line healthcare workers
- The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good
- Exploring vaccine hesitancy in care home employees in North West England: a qualitative study
- Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination
- No Jab, No Job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel
- Healthcare workers’ (HCWs) attitudes and related factors towards COVID-19 vaccination: a rapid systematic review
- Case for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for workers in health and aged care settings: a guide for leaders
- Covid-19: Is the UK heading towards mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers?
- Mandatory covid-19 vaccination for care home workers
- COVID-19 vaccines for children and adolescents in Africa: aligning our priorities to situational realities