Photo credit: Pixabay / CC0 Public Domain

Governments should consider motivating people to receive a COVID-19 shock once the vaccine is available in order to achieve the required level of herd immunity – which could constitute up to 80% of the population – and eradicate the infection, argues a leader Ethicists accepted in an opinion piece for publication in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

The incentive could be either a financial or “payment in kind,” such as not wearing a face mask in public, he suggests.

Given the rising global death toll and the far-reaching health and economic consequences of the pandemic, calls have also been made in the UK to order COVID-19 vaccination if a sting is approved, emphasizes the author, Professor Julian Savulescu, Oxford Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics, Oxford University.

In general, vaccination should be voluntary, he says. However, there is a strong case for making vaccination mandatory (or mandatory) when four conditions are met: a serious threat to public health; The vaccine is safe and effective. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages of a suitable alternative. and the extent of the coercion is proportionate.

Put simply, when voluntary programs fail, we need to move on to Immunization Schedule B, he suggests.

There are examples of coercion for the common good: conscription during war; Taxes; wearing seat belts. There are already mandatory vaccination guidelines in place in different parts of the world, he says.

However, there are ethical issues if a mandatory approach is taken, he claims. If voluntary vaccination proves inadequate, an incentive should be considered to address these issues while increasing vaccine intake.

Some level of absorption will be required to make any vaccination program truly effective and to quell the relentless surge in the pandemic.

“For maximum effectiveness, especially in protecting the most vulnerable populations, vaccination would need to achieve herd immunity (the exact percentage of the population that would have to be immune for herd immunity to be achieved depends on several factors, but current estimates Range up to 82%), “he writes.

While the manufacture and delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine to the world’s population poses logistical issues, general coverage also faces increasing vaccine reluctance – withholding or refusing to vaccinate for safety reasons.

“Vaccines are some of the safest, most effective interventions we have, and they have achieved incredible results. We are no longer faced with diseases that killed our ancestors,” he says, “but the reluctance to use vaccines is growing, even with established vaccines .

“The problem is likely to be greater with a new vaccine. With established vaccines, some countries have turned to mandatory vaccination systems. In an ideal world, the vaccine would be proven to be 100% safe. However, there is likely some risk and there are risks that have not yet been identified were.

“Any mandatory vaccination program would therefore have to make a value judgment about what level of safety and security is safe and secure enough. Of course it would have to be very high, but a 0% risk option is very unlikely,” he suggests.

“So we cannot say whether a binding policy on COVID-19 vaccination is ethically justified until we can assess the type of vaccine, the severity of the problem and the likely costs / benefits of alternatives,” he explains.

Another view, however, is that those with low risk are being asked to do a job that involves some risk, albeit a very small one. So they should be paid for the risk they take to do one Taking risks public good, “suggests Professor Savulescu.

“Anti-Vaxxers” might never be convinced to change their minds, but vaccination incentives might convince others who may not have gotten the sting, he says.

“The benefit of paying for the risk is that people will voluntarily choose to take it. As long as we clearly convey the limits of our confidence as to the risks and benefits of a vaccine, it is up to the individual to judge whether they do this. ” are worth paying, “he says.

Payment is not about coercion, he emphasizes. “If a person chooses this option, it is because they believe their life will be better overall, in this case with the vaccination and the pay.

“It is true that the value of the option could override our rational abilities, but that is no different from offering a lot of money to attract a preferred candidate,” he argues.

This is not about encouraging people to take inappropriate risks. Vaccine development and trials are meant to make sure we’re confident that the risk is very low, he points out.

“If a vaccine is considered safe enough to be offered on a voluntary basis without payment, it must be safe enough to incentivize payment, as the risks are reasonable. It may be that those who are poorer , more inclined to take the vaccine. ” Money and the risk, but this goes for any risky or uncomfortable job in a market economy. It is not necessarily exploitation when there are safeguards such as a minimum wage or a fair price to take risks, ”he suggests.

“A payment model could also be very cheap compared to the alternatives,” he argues. “He estimates the cost of the UK vacation program at £ 60 billion [original] The slated end is slated for October, and the economic shutdown is likely to cost billions more, as well as the estimated 200,000 lives that are expected to be lost.

“It would make economic sense to pay people lots of money to get them vaccinated sooner rather than later – which would, for example, speed their full return to work.”

There are precedents for paying individuals to perform their civic duties: for example, blood donations are paid in several countries, and while the UK does not pay donors directly, it imports blood from countries that do, he points out.

Incentives could also come in kind, he suggests. “An attractive perk would be the freedom to travel, not wearing a mask in public places when you have a vaccination certificate with you, and no social distance,” he suggests. “In addition, it would help to reduce the risks that the unvaccinated would pose to others.”

Follow the latest news on the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak

More information:
Current Controversy: Good Reasons to Get Vaccinated: Mandatory or Pay for Risk? Journal of Medical Ethics (2020). jme.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136… edethics-2020-106821 Provided by the British Medical Journal

Quote: Pay people to get COVID-19 to ensure widespread coverage, says Leading Ethicist (2020 Nov 5th) posted Nov 5, 2020 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/ 2020-11-people-covid-jab-widespread- was accessed. Coverage.html

This document is subject to copyright. Except for fair trade for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without written permission. The content is provided for informational purposes only.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here