{"title":"疫苗接种优先顺序和强制接种的伦理:一种综合方法","authors":"Martin O’Malley, J. Zerth, N. Knoepffler","doi":"10.2478/ebce-2021-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Vaccine scarcity and availability distinguish two central ethics questions raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. First, in situations of scarcity, which groups of persons should receive priority? Second, in situations where safe and effective vaccines are available, what circumstances and reasons can support mandatory vaccination? Regarding the first question, normative approaches converge in prioritizing most-vulnerable groups. Though there is room for prudential judgement regarding which groups are most vulnerable, the human dignity principle is most relevant for prioritization consideration of both medical and non-medical issues. The second question concerning mandates is distinct from considerations about persons’ individual moral duty to receive vaccines judged reasonably safe and critical for individual and public health. While there is consensus regarding the potential normative support for mandated vaccination, the paternalistic government intervention of vaccine mandates requires a high bar of demonstrated vaccine safety and public health risk. We discuss stronger and weaker forms of paternalism to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic from an “integrative” approach that integrates leading normative approaches. We argue against a population-wide compulsory vaccination and support prudential measures to 1) protect vulnerable groups; 2) focus upon incentivizing vaccine participation; 3) maintain maximum-possible individual freedoms, and 4) allow schools, organizations, and enterprises to implement vaccine requirements in local contexts.","PeriodicalId":53173,"journal":{"name":"Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe)","volume":"80 1","pages":"153 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethics of vaccination prioritization and compulsory vaccination: An integrative approach\",\"authors\":\"Martin O’Malley, J. Zerth, N. Knoepffler\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/ebce-2021-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Vaccine scarcity and availability distinguish two central ethics questions raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. First, in situations of scarcity, which groups of persons should receive priority? Second, in situations where safe and effective vaccines are available, what circumstances and reasons can support mandatory vaccination? Regarding the first question, normative approaches converge in prioritizing most-vulnerable groups. Though there is room for prudential judgement regarding which groups are most vulnerable, the human dignity principle is most relevant for prioritization consideration of both medical and non-medical issues. The second question concerning mandates is distinct from considerations about persons’ individual moral duty to receive vaccines judged reasonably safe and critical for individual and public health. While there is consensus regarding the potential normative support for mandated vaccination, the paternalistic government intervention of vaccine mandates requires a high bar of demonstrated vaccine safety and public health risk. We discuss stronger and weaker forms of paternalism to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic from an “integrative” approach that integrates leading normative approaches. We argue against a population-wide compulsory vaccination and support prudential measures to 1) protect vulnerable groups; 2) focus upon incentivizing vaccine participation; 3) maintain maximum-possible individual freedoms, and 4) allow schools, organizations, and enterprises to implement vaccine requirements in local contexts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53173,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe)\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"153 - 162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/ebce-2021-0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/ebce-2021-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ethics of vaccination prioritization and compulsory vaccination: An integrative approach
Abstract Vaccine scarcity and availability distinguish two central ethics questions raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. First, in situations of scarcity, which groups of persons should receive priority? Second, in situations where safe and effective vaccines are available, what circumstances and reasons can support mandatory vaccination? Regarding the first question, normative approaches converge in prioritizing most-vulnerable groups. Though there is room for prudential judgement regarding which groups are most vulnerable, the human dignity principle is most relevant for prioritization consideration of both medical and non-medical issues. The second question concerning mandates is distinct from considerations about persons’ individual moral duty to receive vaccines judged reasonably safe and critical for individual and public health. While there is consensus regarding the potential normative support for mandated vaccination, the paternalistic government intervention of vaccine mandates requires a high bar of demonstrated vaccine safety and public health risk. We discuss stronger and weaker forms of paternalism to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic from an “integrative” approach that integrates leading normative approaches. We argue against a population-wide compulsory vaccination and support prudential measures to 1) protect vulnerable groups; 2) focus upon incentivizing vaccine participation; 3) maintain maximum-possible individual freedoms, and 4) allow schools, organizations, and enterprises to implement vaccine requirements in local contexts.
期刊介绍:
Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) is one of the leading Central European international journals in ethics and bioethics focusing on philosophical ethics, bioethics and applied ethics also including the history of ethics, ethical and moral education as well as professional ethics. The journal publishes theoretical articles as well as empirical findings concerning all aspects of ethics and morality. Authors can submit research articles, review articles, book reviews, conference reports and information on recently published books. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) is published in print as well as electronic format, two issues per year (June and December). Only articles in English are accepted for publishing.