Vaccine Mandates: Weighing the Common Good vs Personal Conscience and Autonomy

COVID-19 is a serious illness with significant morbidity and mortality. Vaccines to immunize against it were developed in record time. Mandates followed. The question to be considered is when mandates are ethical. Mandates can be used to prevent spread of an infection, prevent overwhelming the healthcare system, or protect public safety, thereby protecting the vulnerable and allowing for full flourishing of the common good. At the same time, one must be careful about respecting autonomy by allowing those who consciences do not allow them to be vaccinated to refuse. Because COVID-19 knowledge is rapidly changing as more information is known and the virus mutates, the conditions under which mandates are ethical change as well. At present, since vaccines prevent severe infection and death in high-risk individuals with added benefit for those who are vaccinated and have a history of infection, mandates can be imposed on those individuals. With an estimated 95% of the US population believed to have been infected and prior history of infection shown to be as effective as vaccination, with immunity lasting at least 500 days, and ability to prevent spread unknown at present but limited at best in the past, the vaccines therefore cannot be ethically mandated for those who are low risk for the versions released September 2023 based on information as of October 2023.

A search for commonalities in defining the common good: Using folk theories to unlock shared conceptions

Throughout the course of scholarly history, some concepts have been notoriously hard to define. The 'common good' is one such concept. While the common good has a long and contested scholarly history, social psychology research on folk theories - lay beliefs that represent an individual's informal and subjective understanding of the world - may provide a key for unlocking this nebulous concept. In the current paper, we analysed lay definitions of the common good using the linguistic inquiry and word count's meaning extraction method. From a nationally representative Australian sample of open-ended text responses (n = 14,303), we uncovered a consistent conceptual structure, with nine themes corresponding to three core aspects: (i) outcomes and objects, (ii) principles and processes and (iii) stakeholders and beneficiaries. From this, we developed a working definition of the folk concept of the common good: 'achieving the best possible outcome for the largest number of people, which is underpinned by decision-making that is ethically and morally sound and varies by the context in which the decisions are made'. A working definition benefits the academic community and society more broadly, particularly when diverse stakeholders come together to act for the common good to address shared challenges.

Recalibrating Bioethics for the Reality of Interdependence: The Challenge of Collective-Impact Problems

Bioethics in the twenty-first century is confronting what one might call "collective-impact problems." The ethics guidance and policies that are developed to address these kinds of problems will affect not only individuals but everyone living and future generations too. With many collective-impact problems, all parties will eventually be worse off if there is a failure to develop solutions to head off damage to the shared environment. However, the effects are not felt equally throughout and across societies; some groups are hit far worse. To address collective-impact problems, bioethics needs to recalibrate. Our field, and especially American bioethics, should find a better balance between individual rights and the best interests of the group, develop more robust tools for examining structural inequities that damage people's health and well-being, and study how to engage the public in learning about and shaping ethics guidance for these complex problems.

Faure's new social contract fifty years later: Promises and evolutions

The International Commission on the Development of Education set up by UNESCO in 1971 was chaired by Edgar Faure. The conceptualisation of a new social contract in his work between the 1960s and 1970s had a strong influence on the final report prepared by this commission. Published in 1972, Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow is commonly known as the Faure report. Although not explicitly mentioned in the report, the idea of a new social contract provided a political framework for re-establishing the particular relationship between education and society, based on a strong belief in an educational democracy which considered citizens as real agents of change. Fifty years after the publication of the Faure report, another report commissioned by UNESCO, on the Futures of Education, has taken up the idea of the social contract, conceiving it as a means to transform education to harness greater cooperation towards more sustainable futures. However, while the understanding of the social contract elaborated by Faure translated into a clear vision of the emancipatory function of education for the fulfilment of individuals within democratic societies, the political discussion on the relationship among the institutions that should govern the new social contract for education presented in the Futures of Education report appears less explicit. This article discusses the extent to which the principles underpinning the new social contract for education, especially the notion of education as a common good, provide the political framing of a new social contract for education. It examines the relevance of the political discussion of the relationship between education and society elaborated in the Faure report fifty years ago with regard to the formulation of a new social contract for education.

Ensuring COVID-19 vaccines for low-income countries

Ensuring global access for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is key to avoiding severe COVID-19 disease and achieving herd immunity. This correspondence highlights the importance of advocating for effective and safe COVID-19 vaccines for low-income countries while ensuring equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines. Global access to COVID-19 vaccines for the common good is much needed.

Common good and public service as vital components for government officials in promoting COVID-19 vaccination

Recent reports show that there is resistance in certain countries in regard with receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Different factors contribute to this resistance. With this, if we are to promote COVID-19 vaccination, government officials must build public trust so that the hesitancy among the citizens will be lessened. Thus, this paper proposes that in building public trust, the true essence of common good and public service must be seen from the officials so that their constituents will trust them with their decisions.

Redoing the Demos

Forces including extreme economic inequality, cultural polarization, and the monetizing and privatizing of persons as commodities are undermining the forms of moral recognition and mutuality upon which democratic practices and institutions depend. These underlying factors, together with more direct modes of political corruption, manipulation, and authoritarian nationalism, are undoing Western democracies. This essay identifies and explores some vital underpinnings of democratic citizenship and civic learning that remain open to revitalization and repair. Building care structures and practices from the ground up and developing inclusive and egalitarian modes of solidarity in a pluralistic society are the focus of discussion. The essay argues that solidarity and care are essential relationships and practices of moral recognition upon which democratic political agency and freedom rest. The social-relational lifeworld and the democratic lifeworld are interdependent. Democratic citizenship is itself a relational practice that supports other practices. Democratic governance properly carried out fosters an underlying social solidarity and care and in turn draws moral and political legitimacy upward from them.

Ethics of Vaccination in Childhood-A Framework Based on the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics

Although vaccination is recognised as the top public health achievement of the twentieth century, unequivocal consensus about its beneficence does not exist among the general population. In countries with well-established immunisation programmes, vaccines are “victims of their own success”, because low incidences of diseases now prevented with vaccines diminished the experience of their historical burdens. Increasing number of vaccine-hesitant people in recent years threatens, or even effectively disables, herd immunity levels of the population and results in outbreaks of previously already controlled diseases. We aimed to apply a framework for ethical analysis of vaccination in childhood based on the four principles of biomedical ethics (respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice) to provide a comprehensive and applicable model on how to address the ethical aspects of vaccination at both individual and societal levels. We suggest finding an “ethical equilibrium”, which means that the degree of respect for parents’ autonomy is not constant, but variable; it shall depend on the level of established herd immunity and it is specific for every society. When the moral obligation of individuals to contribute to herd immunity is not fulfilled, mandatory vaccination policies are ethically justified, because states bear responsibility to protect herd immunity as a common good.

Citizens' conceptions of the genome: Related values and practical implications in a citizen forum on the use of genomic information

BACKGROUND

The development of large data sets, including genomic data, coupled with rapid advances in personalized medicine where citizens increasingly face complex choices about the use of their genomic information implies that citizens are essential stakeholders in genomics. They should be engaged in the ethical, legal and societal issues to produce a framework that fosters trust and allows them to guide the technology based on their values.

OBJECTIVE

This article highlights that citizens' conceptions of the human genome inform about and make sense of their main values regarding the use of genomic information, which is critical for policymakers, experts and stakeholders to understand to maintain the public support in genomics.

METHOD

Through an inductive thematic approach, we reanalysed data collected for the Belgian citizen forum, which aimed to produce recommendations for the Ministry of Public Health and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Citizens expressed four conceptions of the genome that determined which uses of genomic information they supported: the most intimate part of individuals; 'I am more than my genome'; the individual's property vs the common good; and uncertainty and fear.

CONCLUSION

Diversity in their conceptions reveals remaining conflicts of values among citizens, mainly regarding a conception of the genome as an individual property or a common good. However, despite differing conceptions, shared values emerged such as solidarity, privacy, no genetic discrimination and the right to an open future, where individual and common interests coexist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The panel of the citizen forum consisted of 32 citizens.

Determinants of the Financial Contribution to the NHS: The Case of the COVID-19 Emergency in Italy

The COVID-19 pandemic has quickly become an unprecedented challenge for many countries at a global level, requiring a significant amount of financial resources to support the National Healthcare System (NHS). In Italy, most of these resources came from the general public through tax payments and monetary donations. The present work aims to investigate the antecedents of citizens’ willingness to financially support the NHS in a situation of public emergency such as the one related to the COVID-19 outbreak. It also aims to distinguish between the willingness to support the system through two different forms of financial contribution, tax payment and charitable giving. An empirical study was performed in the midst of the Italian public health emergency, while the country was reaching its contagion peak. Results showed that participants were more willing to give a financial contribution when it was framed as a one-off donation rather than as a one-off tax payment. Moreover, it was found that trust in money management was the most important factor in predicting the intention to make a financial contribution to the NHS, either through a tax payment or through charitable giving. The perceived risks with regard to the pandemic, in contrast, had no impact.

Lay People's Ethical Attitudes To Placebo Treatment: A Q-Methodology Study

BACKGROUND

Placebo-treatment acceptability is debated among ethicists, mostly due to conflict between respect-to-autonomy and beneficence principles. It is not clear how lay people balance these and other ethical principles.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-seven respondents rank-ordered 42 opinion statements covering various ethical aspects of placebo-treatment, according to a 9-category symmetrical distribution. We analyzed statements' scores using averaging-analysis and by-person factor analysis (Q-methodology).

RESULTS

Respondents' mean (SD) age was 34.6 (10.6) years, 54% were women, 40% healthcare-related, 68% Muslims (31% Christians), and 39% received general education in Saudi Arabia (24% in the Philippines). On averaging-analysis, the most-agreeable statements were "Acceptable if benefit to patient large" and "Acceptable with physician intent to benefit patient". The most-disagreeable statements were "Acceptable with physician self-benefit intent" and "Acceptable with large harm to other patients". Muslims gave a higher rank to "Giving no description is acceptable", "Acceptable with small benefit to patient", and "Acceptable with physician intent to benefit patient" and a lower rank to "Acceptable to describe as inactive drug", "Acceptable with physician intent to please patient caring relative", and "Acceptable with moderate harm to other patients" (p<0.01). Q-methodology detected several ethical attitude models that were mostly multi-principled and consequentialism-dominated. The majority of Christian and Philippines-educated women loaded on a "relatively family and deception-concerned" model, whereas the majority of Muslim and Saudi Arabia-educated women loaded on a "relatively common-good-concerned" model. The majority of Christian and healthcare men loaded on a "relatively deception-concerned" model, whereas the majority of Muslim and non-healthcare men loaded on a "relatively motives-concerned" model. Of nine intent-related statements, ≥2 received extreme rank on averaging-analysis and in 100% of women and men models.

CONCLUSION

1) On averaging-analysis, patient's beneficence (consequentialism) followed by physician's intent (virtue ethics) were more important than deception (respect-to-autonomy). 2) Q-methodology identified several ethical attitude models that were mostly multi-principled and associated with respondents' demographics.

Can the Thought of Teilhard de Chardin Carry Us Past Current Contentious Discussions of Gene Editing Technologies?

The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 technology has increased attention, and contention, regarding the use and regulation of genome editing technologies. Public discussions continue to give evidence of this debate falling back into the previous polarized positions of technological enthusiasts versus those who are more cautious in their approach. One response to this contentious relapse could be to view this promising and problematic new technology from a radically different perspective that embraces both the excitement of this technological advance and the prudence necessary to use it well. The thought of Teilhard de Chardin provides this desired perspective, and some insights that may help carry forward public discussions to achieve widely accepted uses and regulations.

In Defense of the Commons: Young Children Negatively Evaluate and Sanction Free Riders

Human flourishing depends on individuals paying costs to contribute to the common good, but such arrangements are vulnerable to free riding, in which individuals benefit from others' contributions without paying costs themselves. Systems of tracking and sanctioning free riders can stabilize cooperation, but the origin of such tendencies is not well understood. Here, we provide evidence that children as young as 4 years old negatively evaluate and sanction free riders. Across six studies, we showed that these tendencies are robust, large in magnitude, tuned to intentional rather than unintentional noncontribution, and generally consistent across third- and first-party cases. Further, these effects cannot be accounted for by factors that frequently co-occur with free riding, such as nonconforming behaviors or the costs that free riding imposes on the group. Our findings demonstrate that from early in life, children both hold and enforce a normative expectation that individuals are intrinsically obligated to contribute to the common good.

Human Nuclear Genome Transfer (So-Called Mitochondrial Replacement): Clearing the Underbrush

In this article, I argue that there is no compelling therapeutic 'need' for human nuclear genome transfer (so-called mitochondrial replacement) to prevent mitochondrial diseases caused by mtDNA mutations. At most there is a strong interest in (i.e. 'want' for) this technology on the part of some women and couples at risk of having children with mitochondrial disease, and perhaps also a 'want' on the part of some researchers who see the technology as a useful precedent - one that provides them with 'a quiet way station' in which to refine the micromanipulations techniques essential for other human germline interventions and human cloning. In advance of this argument, I review basic information about mitochondrial disease and novel genetic strategies to prevent the transmission of mutated mitochondria. Next, I address common features of contemporary debates and discussions about so-called mitochondrial replacement. First, I contest the cliché that science-and-(bio)technology is fast outpacing ethics. Second, I dispute the accuracy of the term 'mitochondrial replacement'. Third, I provide a sustained critique of the purported 'need' for genetically-related children. In closing, I call into question the mainly liberal defense of human nuclear genome transfer. I suggest an alternative frame of reference that pays particular attention to issues of social justice. I conclude that our limited resources (time, talent, human eggs, and money) should be carefully expended in pursuit of the common good, which does not include pandering to acquired desires (i.e., wants).

Why not Commercial Assistance for Suicide? On the Question of Argumentative Coherence of Endorsing Assisted Suicide

Most people who endorse physician-assisted suicide are against commercially assisted suicide - a suicide assisted by professional non-medical providers against payment. The article questions if this position - endorsement of physician-assisted suicide on the one hand and rejection of commercially assisted suicide on the other hand - is a coherent ethical position. To this end the article first discusses some obvious advantages of commercially assisted suicide and then scrutinizes six types of argument about whether they can justify the rejection of commercially assisted suicide while simultaneously endorsing physician-assisted suicide. The conclusion is that they cannot provide this justification and that the mentioned position is not coherent. People who endorse physician-assisted suicide have to endorse commercially assisted suicide as well, or they have to revise their endorsement of physician-assisted suicide.

Relational Personhood, Social Justice and the Common Good: Catholic Contributions toward a Public Health Ethics

Worldwide, there is renewed public and political attention focused on public health fueled by the globally explosive H1N1 pandemic. Pandemic planning emerged as a major area for public action in the absence of an overarching ethics framework appropriate for the community and population focus of public health. Baylis, Sherwin, and Kenny propose relational personhood and relational solidarity as core values for a public health ethics. The Catholic faith tradition makes three useful contributions in support of a relational ethic: first, a religious ontology that aligns with the view that human persons are inherently relational; second, a coherent account of the requisite social and communal ideals and structures that this belief demands; and third, inspiration and motivation for the attitudes and actions that are required in response to a relational ontology.