Article info
Commentary
Who commits the unnaturalistic fallacy?
- Correspondence to Dr Kyle Ferguson, Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; kyle.ferguson{at}nyulangone.org
Citation
Who commits the unnaturalistic fallacy?
Publication history
- Received April 26, 2022
- Accepted May 2, 2022
- First published May 11, 2022.
Online issue publication
May 23, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (11 May 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
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
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- The unnaturalistic fallacy: COVID-19 vaccine mandates should not discriminate against natural immunity
- Proportionality, wrongs and equipoise for natural immunity exemptions: response to commentators
- Vaccine mandates need a clear rationale to identify which exemptions are appropriate
- Considerations for vaccinating children against COVID-19
- Vaccination against COVID-19 and society’s return to normality in England: a modelling study of impacts of different types of naturally acquired and vaccine-induced immunity
- Herd immunity, vaccination and moral obligation
- Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers beyond COVID-19
- No right answer: officials need discretion on whether to allow natural immunity exemptions
- Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?
- The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good