Covid-19 and arguments about abortion.

Covid-19 and arguments related to abortion – these two topics between them take up the majority of the pages of this issue. That the first of these should do so, is no surprise. Over two years on from news of the first cases of the disease in Wuhan, Covid-19 continues to cause both chaos with the health of populations and economies and controversies among clinicians, bioethicists, politicians and the general public. In the UK, the Health Service Journal has at the time of writing just announced the NHS should ‘prepare for redeploying or dismissing thousands of unvaccinated staff without an exit payment, and to raise the alarm about services which may be rendered unsafe.’ (Collins 2022) All healthcare workers in the NHS have been given until April 1st 2022 to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Two articles raise concerns about mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers. Hurford, a lawyer, considers in his paper ‘whether legal compulsion by the state is justified in the case of the current vaccines against COVID-19.’ After giving precise consideration of the meanings of some key terms – coercion, autonomy, and legal consent, he concludes that legal power could easily be created to introduce compulsory vaccination, because ‘Parliamentary sovereignty permits Parliament to legislate on any subject, even in ways contrary to fundamental civil and human rights (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, per Lord Hoffman).’ However, after a detailed consideration of the ethics of mandatory vaccination, he concludes that ‘Undoubtedly, the Government could make vaccination compulsory. However... a line seems to be crossed when the state mandates that citizens submit to medical procedures against their will.’ Since the pre-print of Hurford’s article was published online, plans in the UK to introduce mandatory vaccination for both health and social care workers have progressed. Rodger, an academic and healthcare worker himself and his co-author offer six reasons against mandatory vaccination – failure to respect moral integrity and bodily autonomy, exacerbation of psychological reactance against vaccination, the disproportionate effect on Black and ethnic minority health and social care workers, a significant adverse effect on service provision from an already overstretched workforce, a shifting target of what constitutes being ‘fully’ vaccinated and finally it may act as a disincentive to future potential recruits. The also suggest that ‘daily rapid antigen testing is a viable alternative to a vaccine mandate that is non-coercive and fair.’ This debate will inform future practice not only in the UK but also as such polices are contemplated across the world. the new bioethics, Vol. 28 No. 1, 2022, 1–3