4.3 Article

Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
Volume 47, Issue 2, Pages 78-85

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106821

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education
  2. Wellcome Trust [WT104848, WT203132]
  3. Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

When 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 noncompliance are proportionate, mandatory vaccination can be ethically justified.
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 noncompliance 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available