Introduction
Discussions concerning making vaccinations compulsory have long been debated and have significantly been an issue that has been left unaddressed. However, according to Balog (2019), making vaccinations compulsory demands various considerations. For instance, according to public health legislation, it is stated that children below a given age should be fully vaccinated. Such legislation is made to ensure that children are protected from infections and diseases. According to Balog (2019), vaccinations are among the most effective public health intercessions across the globe that are used to save lives and promote good human health. However, despite the significance of vaccinations, some states are against vaccinations. That is, vaccinations are reduced, mainly contributed by misguided concerns over vaccine safety (Brennan, 2018). This paper will discuss under which conditions compulsory vaccines are justifiable.
Literature review
Are compulsory vaccines justifiable? Making vaccines compulsory in various states has been unaddressed in the public health legislation (Brennan, 2018). However, vaccines are among the effective measures employed by public health when saving lives and promoting good health. According to Brennan (2018), the uptake of vaccines in certain states has decreased as the resurgence of infectious diseases has been noted; for that reason, some of the dates are deciding to make vaccines compulsory and mandatory (Brennan, 2018). However, the effectiveness of mandatory and compulsory vaccines can vary from one state to another (Savulescu, 2021). For instance, for all the fifty states of the United States, vaccinations are made compulsory for children over five. They are expected to receive vaccinations prior to enrolment in the states licensed schools, private schools, and day-care facilities (Brennan, 2018).
Mandatory vaccinations are ethically considered justifiable when the disease being prevented is termed as public health grave (Carter and Yentis, 2018). When the confidence in safeness and effectiveness of a given vaccine is higher when the anticipated usefulness of compulsory vaccination is more significant than the substitutes, and when the forfeits or the costs associated with vaccinations for nonfulfillment to getting vaccinated are comparable (Carter and Yentis, 2018). For instance, we are in the centre of a international pandemic with covid-19 where health officials are in the race to develop a vaccine (Carter and Yentis, 2018). Given the number of deaths due to the intense spread of the disease, vaccines can be made compulsory since the infectious rate is a threat to public health (Carter and Yentis, 2018).
However, in making the covid-19 vaccine compulsory, some ethics need to be considered (Giubilini and Savulescu, 2019). That is, mandatory vaccinations should be typically be justified under specific grounds. For instance, when the disease is a harm to others. According to Giubilini and Savulescu (2019), the solitary pulverised for the use of public coercion, which involves a constraint of freedom, is when a given individual turns to be a threat and has the potential of causing harm to others. The most prominent argument that bioethicists consider is preventing harm to others (Giubilini and Savulescu, 2019). Additionally, any significant harm to a child provides a ground to call for a state’s protection in the case of a child. For instance, when a kid takes a box full of toxic blanching agent to school with the potential of harming himself and others, the teachers have the mandate to confine the kid and eradicate the poison due to risk to the kid and other skids (Giubilini and Savulescu, 2019). Therefore, a state can justify compulsory vaccination when the disease threatens public health.
Further, a vaccine can be justifiable when the prevented disease is a have threat to public health (Giubilini, 2021). Ideally, since the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, there has been a high number of deaths reported, which means that the pandemic is a death threat to public health (Williams, 2021). According to Giubilini (2021), it was predicted that due to the intense spread and wrath of the pandemic virus, more than half a million would have died if no measures were implemented to curb the spread of the pandemic United Kingdom. In addition, one of the most affected states due to the invasion of the pandemic was Belgium, where there were higher numbers of deaths (Krick and Reese, 2021). Due to these impacts, Belgium has initialized strict pandemic measures that can be used to curb the spread and impact of pandemics. One of the measures adopted by the Belgium government is making the vaccinations of covid-19 compulsory since the disease is a death threat to the public (Krick and Reese, 2021).
Also, a vaccine is justifiable if the vaccine is effective and safe for human health (Opel, Sonne, and Mello, 2018). When a vaccine is effective and safe for humans, public health legislation has the mandate to justify and make the vaccine mandatory. According to Opel, Sonne, and Mello (2018), vaccines are termed as the most significant medical accomplishments and most effective methods when t comes to treating and saving lives in public health. However, robust testing methodologies are needed to credit the vaccine as safe and effective for use in humans (Opel, Diekema, and Marcuse, 2019). For instance, various jurisdictions need to be tested and observed to ensure that the covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective for humans (Opel, Diekema, and Marcuse, 2019). Further, the vaccine can be justified when the main objective is saving more lives and can promote confidence of safety and efficacy in using the vaccine.
Moreover, a vaccine can be justified and made compulsory if it is the only version of the treatment that is better than other alternatives (Gur-Arie, Jamrozik, and Kingori, 2021). Putting this into perspective is a typical principle of verdict theory. The anticipated utility of a projected option must and should be associated with the expected utility of the relevant alternatives. According to research, there are various substitutions to compulsory vaccination when preventing an infectious disease (Gur-Arie, Jamrozik, and Kingori, 2021). This is why we cannot say a vaccine is ethically justified until there are effective comparisons of the landscape of the serum, the enormity of the situation, and the likely benefit of other substitutes.
Further, according to Gur-Arie, Jamrozik, and Kingori (2021), it is vital to recognize that forced vaccination can be acceptable. Also, vaccines are made compulsory and justified according to the policies of a given state (Gur-Arie, Jamrozik, and Kingori, 2021). For instance, compulsory vaccination strategies are the vaccines that embrace non-voluntary elements to vaccine accord and can levy a forfeit to those who seem to contradict the health condition. For instance, Australia has developed the” no jab, no pay analogy,” which suppresses a kid’s profits if the kid is not vaccinated, and “no job, no play analogy,” which suppresses the day-care reimbursements (Gur-Arie, Jamrozik, and Kingori, 2021).
Conclusion
In conclusion, vaccines are among the most effective methods that public health implements to save lives and promote human health. This paper has discussed the various conditions that compulsory vaccines are made mandatory and justified in implementing them to human health. A vaccine can be compulsory and justified when it remains the best among the other provided alternatives. The vaccine is safe to use on humans and adequate to the disease or infection. The prevented disease or infection is a grave death threat to public health.
References
Balog, J.E., 2019. The moral justification for a compulsory human papillomavirus vaccination program. American Journal of Public Health, 99(4), pp.616-622.
Brennan, J., 2018. A libertarian case for mandatory vaccination. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(1), pp.37-43.
Carter, A.H. and Yentis, S.M., 2018. Ethical considerations in the uptake of influenza vaccination by healthcare workers. Public Health, 158, pp.61-63.
Field, R.I. and Caplan, A.L., 2008. A proposed ethical framework for vaccine mandates: competing values and the case of HPV. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(2), pp.111-124.
Giubilini, A. and Savulescu, J., 2019. Vaccination, risks, and freedom: the seat belt analogy. Public Health Ethics, 12(3), pp.237-249.
Giubilini, A., 2021. Vaccination ethics. British medical bulletin, 137(1), pp.4-12.
Gur-Arie, R., Jamrozik, E. and Kingori, P., 2021. No jab, no job? Ethical issues in mandatory COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare personnel. BMJ global health, 6(2), p.e004877.
Krick, M.J.A. and Reese, M.T.R., 2021. Mandating the COVID-19 vaccine for US service members: An exploration of ethical arguments. Military medicine.
Opel, D.J., Sonne, J.A. and Mello, M.M., 2018. Vaccination without litigation—addressing religious objections to hospital influenza-vaccination mandates. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(9), pp.785-788.
Opel, D.J., Diekema, D.S. and Marcuse, E.K., 2008. A critique of criteria for evaluating vaccines for inclusion in mandatory school immunization programs. Pediatrics, 122(2), pp.e504-e510.
Savulescu, J., 2021. Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?. Journal of medical ethics, 47(2), pp.78-85.
Williams, B.M., 2021. The Ethics of Selective Mandatory Vaccination for COVID-19. Public Health Ethics.
write