4.3 Article

Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 78-85

出版社

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

关键词

-

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据