Cargando…
Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic
In early 2021, cases of rare adverse events were observed in individuals who had received the Astra Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Countries around the world differed radically in their policy responses to these observations. In this paper, we outline the ethical justification for different policy approac...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8928173/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35311222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab036 |
_version_ | 1784670594205220864 |
---|---|
author | Pugh, Jonathan Wilkinson, Dominic Kerridge, Ian Savulescu, Julian |
author_facet | Pugh, Jonathan Wilkinson, Dominic Kerridge, Ian Savulescu, Julian |
author_sort | Pugh, Jonathan |
collection | PubMed |
description | In early 2021, cases of rare adverse events were observed in individuals who had received the Astra Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Countries around the world differed radically in their policy responses to these observations. In this paper, we outline the ethical justification for different policy approaches for managing the emerging risks of novel vaccines in a pandemic. We begin by detailing the precautionary approach that some countries adopted, and distinguishing ethical questions regarding the management of known and unknown risks. We go on to outline the harms of adopting a highly precautionary approach in a pandemic context, and explain why an appropriate policy approach should accommodate the benefits as well as the risks of vaccination. In the final section, we outline three policy approaches that can accommodate the different benefits of vaccination, whilst taking into account the harms of precaution. Whilst we do not set out to defend one particular policy approach, we explain how different moral theories lend different degrees of support to each of these different approaches. Our analysis elucidates how fundamental value conflicts in public health ethics played out on the global stage of vaccine policy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8928173 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89281732022-03-18 Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic Pugh, Jonathan Wilkinson, Dominic Kerridge, Ian Savulescu, Julian J Law Biosci Original Article In early 2021, cases of rare adverse events were observed in individuals who had received the Astra Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Countries around the world differed radically in their policy responses to these observations. In this paper, we outline the ethical justification for different policy approaches for managing the emerging risks of novel vaccines in a pandemic. We begin by detailing the precautionary approach that some countries adopted, and distinguishing ethical questions regarding the management of known and unknown risks. We go on to outline the harms of adopting a highly precautionary approach in a pandemic context, and explain why an appropriate policy approach should accommodate the benefits as well as the risks of vaccination. In the final section, we outline three policy approaches that can accommodate the different benefits of vaccination, whilst taking into account the harms of precaution. Whilst we do not set out to defend one particular policy approach, we explain how different moral theories lend different degrees of support to each of these different approaches. Our analysis elucidates how fundamental value conflicts in public health ethics played out on the global stage of vaccine policy. Oxford University Press 2022-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8928173/ /pubmed/35311222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab036 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Pugh, Jonathan Wilkinson, Dominic Kerridge, Ian Savulescu, Julian Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic |
title | Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic |
title_full | Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic |
title_fullStr | Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic |
title_full_unstemmed | Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic |
title_short | Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic |
title_sort | vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8928173/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35311222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab036 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pughjonathan vaccinesuspensionriskandprecautioninapandemic AT wilkinsondominic vaccinesuspensionriskandprecautioninapandemic AT kerridgeian vaccinesuspensionriskandprecautioninapandemic AT savulescujulian vaccinesuspensionriskandprecautioninapandemic |