Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 3:27:46 GMT -5
Vaccines against covid-19 are already knocking on the door. Soon, it will be possible to start distributing them. From that moment on, it will be imperative to answer a complex question: should we introduce them through mandatory vaccination policies? The proposal is tempting. Vaccines are one of the greatest achievements in the history of public health. To point out just a couple of facts, it is estimated that mass vaccination has saved about 100 million infections of infectious diseases in the United States since 1924, and about 9,000 deaths of children between 1903 and 1992 in the Netherlands. Introducing coercive measures, in turn, has made it possible to increase vaccination rates against some pathologies in several European countries. The obvious problem is that any coercive policy collides head-on with fundamental human rights, such as freedom or physical integrity, which should only be limited when there is a good reason to support it.
When might we consider this happening? Julian Savulescu, one of the most famous bioethicists in the world, believes that mandatory vaccination can only be carried out when four fundamental conditions are met: There is a serious threat to public health. The vaccine is safe and effective. Mandatory vaccination policies show a higher AOL Email List cost/benefit ratio than other alternatives. The level of coercion imposed is proportionate. Are these conditions met in the case of covid-19? Assuming that the first one does, it is more complex to reach clear conclusions regarding the others. Let's analice each one of them. Is the vaccine safe and effective? This question is difficult to answer in general right now. We are yet to see the results of the clinical trials of Pfizer or Moderna, for example, which have only ventured to show press releases. AstraZeneca, on the other hand, has openly published them, but its product is still in the safety testing phase, not efficiency.
All in all, there is no reason to suspect that the vaccines are unsafe and, although their effectiveness has yet to be tested in more detail, the first news seems promising. Now, while this is true in general, it is also true that we do not have relevant data regarding a very important part of the population: children. The clinical trials in this first stage have not included minors. It is not strange, since tests in children are usually delayed until it is certain of their safety in adults. All in all, this means that if we proceed with a mandatory vaccination of this group, we will do so assuming higher risks than those of other population groups. In my opinion, this would be ethically unacceptable considering that children are the ones who are likely to obtain the least benefits from vaccination, given that most of them hardly suffer any relevant symptoms if they contract the disease. Nor does it seem that a policy that attempts to impose this vaccination can overcome the resistance of many parents, who have a special obligation to protect their children.
When might we consider this happening? Julian Savulescu, one of the most famous bioethicists in the world, believes that mandatory vaccination can only be carried out when four fundamental conditions are met: There is a serious threat to public health. The vaccine is safe and effective. Mandatory vaccination policies show a higher AOL Email List cost/benefit ratio than other alternatives. The level of coercion imposed is proportionate. Are these conditions met in the case of covid-19? Assuming that the first one does, it is more complex to reach clear conclusions regarding the others. Let's analice each one of them. Is the vaccine safe and effective? This question is difficult to answer in general right now. We are yet to see the results of the clinical trials of Pfizer or Moderna, for example, which have only ventured to show press releases. AstraZeneca, on the other hand, has openly published them, but its product is still in the safety testing phase, not efficiency.
All in all, there is no reason to suspect that the vaccines are unsafe and, although their effectiveness has yet to be tested in more detail, the first news seems promising. Now, while this is true in general, it is also true that we do not have relevant data regarding a very important part of the population: children. The clinical trials in this first stage have not included minors. It is not strange, since tests in children are usually delayed until it is certain of their safety in adults. All in all, this means that if we proceed with a mandatory vaccination of this group, we will do so assuming higher risks than those of other population groups. In my opinion, this would be ethically unacceptable considering that children are the ones who are likely to obtain the least benefits from vaccination, given that most of them hardly suffer any relevant symptoms if they contract the disease. Nor does it seem that a policy that attempts to impose this vaccination can overcome the resistance of many parents, who have a special obligation to protect their children.