Article Text
Abstract
Seven COVID-19 vaccines are now being distributed and administered around the world (figure correct at the time of submission), with more on the horizon. It is widely accepted that healthcare workers should have high priority. However, questions have been raised about what we ought to do if members of priority groups refuse vaccination. Using the case of influenza vaccination as a comparison, we know that coercive approaches to vaccination uptake effectively increase vaccination rates among healthcare workers and reduce patient morbidity if properly implemented. Using the principle of least restrictive alternative, we have developed an intervention ladder for COVID-19 vaccination policies among healthcare workers. We argue that healthcare workers refusing vaccination without a medical reason should be temporarily redeployed and, if their refusal persists after the redeployment period, eventually suspended, in order to reduce the risk to their colleagues and patients. This ‘conditional’ policy is a compromise between entirely voluntary or entirely mandatory policies for healthcare workers, and is consistent with healthcare workers’ established professional, legal and ethical obligations to their patients and to society at large.
- COVID-19
- health workforce
- public health ethics
- clinical ethics
- right to refuse treatment
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
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
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
Footnotes
Contributors OMB developed the concept for the article with consultation and expansion from AG. OMB performed the scoping and primary drafting while AG provided substantial revisions and expansion of concepts. Both OMB and AG approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding OMB was supported by a Melbourne Research Scholarship and is also a recipient of a 2020 Fulbright Future Scholarship sponsored by The Kinghorn Foundation. AG was supported by an AHRC/UKRI grant (AH/V006819/1).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers beyond COVID-19
- No Jab, No Job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel
- Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?
- Healthcare workers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the UK’s COVID-19 vaccination programme: a rapid qualitative appraisal
- Exploring vaccine hesitancy in care home employees in North West England: a qualitative study
- Covid-19: Is the UK heading towards mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers?
- Should influenza vaccination be mandatory for healthcare workers?
- The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good
- Case for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for workers in health and aged care settings: a guide for leaders
- Healthcare workers’ (HCWs) attitudes and related factors towards COVID-19 vaccination: a rapid systematic review