Mandatory Vaccination

Responsibility always comes with commitment. In the realm of criminal law, the content of this obligation is to accept the effects and consequences of criminal acts, that is, to bear the punishment that is considered as responds for the reprehensible acts of the criminal; But simply by committing a crime, the burden of responsibility cannot be placed on the culprit's shoulders at once, but before that, one should be considered worthy of bearing this heavy burden. Jurists call the ability to accept the burden of guilt as "imputability" and have defined it as the subject's having the power of intelligence and discretion. Therefore, if the criminal does not have intelligence and free will, one will not be responsible for his actions. In accordance with this approach, in the Belgian legal system, the lack of criminal responsibility of children is accepted.
Accordingly, in this system, criminal maturity is set at 18 years. Under this age, children cannot be sentenced based on general rules. Legal developments in this country show that although the laws have had a protective tendency towards children, in recent years due to security considerations and more protection. From society, the punitive approach has been proposed in the field of responding to the behavior of children against the law. The trend towards restorative justice in response to the behavior of children violating the law and emphasizing more parental responsibilities is also among the emerging approaches that can be seen in the Belgian legal system.
Keywords: Child delinquency  Criminal maturity  Criminal responsibility  Criminal law  Belgian legal system

The present pandemic situation created the context for the promulgation of a new legislation for certain public health’s issues with the intrusion into the private life. In addition, the medical professionals say to be possible a return to the normal life only after the majority of the population will be vaccinated. Although the Oviedo Convention promotes, without exception, informed consent to any medical intervention, by enacting specific legislation for compulsory vaccination, it will no longer be necessary to obtain the patient’s consent. How will vaccination campaigns be implemented and carried out in that context? Can this approach regarding the exercise of external decision-making authority in the field of individual actions find other patterns of justification? What will be the impact of these mass vaccinations by compulsion on the individual? The purpose of this paper is to discuss the ethical aspects of mandatory vaccination in a pandemic context and to analyze the possible objections to it by referring to the history of vaccination’s oppositions.

O presente trabalho analisa o movimento antivacina e a autonomia parental no contexto da pandemia causada pela COVID-19. Com o fito de atingir o objeto pretendido, serão examinados, em um primeiro momento, os movimentos antivacina e anticiência, bem como, possíveis formas de combatê-los. Ademais, será analisado exercício da autonomia em um cenário anticiência e, por fim, investiga-se a recusa vacinal a partir do exercício da autonomia familiar. Acrescenta-se que a foi realizada uma revisão documental e bibliográfica para construção desta pesquisa, por meio do método hipotético dedutivo, através do falseamento de hipóteses. Tendo que a vacinação possui uma importância no combate de doenças, enquanto um dever legal moral e social, destaca-se a relevância e atualidade deste tema uma vez que envolve bem jurídicos demasiadamente preciosos: a saúde e a vida do menor e de toda a coletividade.

Tıp ve hukuk camialarının değerli mensupları, değerli meslektaşlarım, Yüce Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin değerli baş raportörleri, hepinizi saygı ve sevgiyle selamlıyorum. Altınbaş Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi'nden Doç. Dr. Meliha Sermin Paksoy'un tertip ettiği bu etkinlikte, Tıp ile hukukun halk sağlığı özelinde buluştuğu bir alandayız. Bugün bu alanlarda gerilim ilişkisinin olduğu bir konuyu ele alıyoruz. Birinci oturumu başlatmadan önce kısaca kendi bireysel deneyimlerimi de paylaşabilirim. Öncelikle anayasa hukuku boyutunu göz önüne aldığımızda, eski Anayasamız olan 1961 Anayasası'nın "Sağlık Hakkı"nı öngören 49. maddesi, bunu gerçekleştirmeyi devletin bir yükümlülüğü olarak tanımlamıştı. 1982 Anayasası'nda ise, "Sağlık Hizmetleri ve Çevrenin Korunması" başlıklı 56. maddenin üçüncü fıkrası sağlık hakkı ile ilgilidir. Pandemi, İtalya'da başladı. İtalya'nın kuzeyinde önce ve ağırlıklı olarak yaşlılarda toplu ölümlere yol açtı. Çin'den gelenlerin pandemiyi yarattığı tespit edildi ve diğer gelişmeler yaşandı. Zorunlu aşı aleyhine toplumlarda ciddi dirençler oluştu. Bu bağlamda," Biz küresel sermayenin deneme alanı değiliz" çıkışları hala gündemdedir. Kamu sağlığını korumak kadar onu korurken bireyin temel hak ve özgürlüklerini ne kadar dikkate aldığımız da aynı derecede önemlidir. Bugün, konunun uzmanları bizlerle fikirlerini paylaşacak. Ben de bunu sabırsızlıkla bekliyorum. Pandemi döneminde, ailemiz üzerinde kişisel gözlemlerimiz oldu. Eşim üniversitede çalışan bir akademisyen ama arkadaş çevremizde çalışmayan kadınlar vardı. Onların özgürlük alanı, aşı olmadıkları halde daha genişti. Aşı olup olmama konusunda bir akademisyenin çalışma hayatında kalabilmesi, kampüse girip çıkabilmesi, toplu ulaşımı kullanabilmesi öngörülen zorunlu aşıları sırasıyla olmasıyla mümkündü. Buna direnenler çalışma hayatından haliyle diskalifiye edilmiş oldu.

On 24 March 2020, three days after the COVID-19 pandemic was formally announced, the Ugandan government introduced the Public Health Control of COVID-19 Rules, 2020. The rules imposed restrictions, such as banning mass gatherings, mandatory mask-wearing, curfews, and, later, mandatory vaccination, aimed at fostering compliance with public health preventive measures. This paper examines how Ugandan leaders applied transformational leadership skills to manage public attitudes and behaviours during the COVID-19 crisis, focusing on their ability to guide the population effectively. The study also investigates the leader's reputational trust, particularly examining the consistency with which the president and the health minister used their words and actions to inspire compliance with COVID-19 social and behavioral change (SBC) messages. Using critical discourse analysis, we examine how the two Ugandan leaders used their words and actions to impact the uptake of SBC messages. Findings reveal a significant theoretical linkage between transformational leadership and reputational trust, demonstrating that when both concepts are applied as a risk communication and community engagement strategy, they influence public compliance and favourable engagement during a health crisis. The study highlights the necessity for consistent alignment between leaders' words and actions to build trust and ensure effective public health interventions. It emphasizes the importance of ethical and transparent communication by leaders, illustrating that such practices foster public trust and enhance the overall effectiveness of crisis management strategies. This study contributes to Preaching water and drinking wine: Transformational Leadership and Reputational Trust as key drivers to Sustainable Uptake of COVID-19 Social and Behavior Change (SBC) Messages in Uganda. 2 understanding how transformational leadership and reputational trust can improve the management of public health crises and achieve sustainable social and behavioural change.

Context: Public health practitioners are involved in a wide array of contexts. Local and national government public health agencies; domestic and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); and academic institutions are just a few examples of the settings where public health practitioners work. Acting ethically and meeting ethical commitments in a practical and transdisciplinary endeavor as complicated as public health necessitates careful consideration. Ethical practice ensures that public health institutions work properly and that individual public health practitioners maintain their integrity. There is little debate about the importance of ethics in public health professional practice and, as a result, the necessity for a corresponding professional code of ethics. Policy Options: Only an US-American code of public health ethics has been created so far. Since ethical considerations in public health are heavily dependent in contexts, the aim of this document is to initiate a discussion surrounding the establishment of a Code of Ethics for Public Health Professionals in Europe. Recommendations:  Stimulate the discussion on a European code of public health ethics.  Make a clear distinction between public health ethics and medical ethics.  Recognize public health as a profession and not just a medical specialty.  Recognize the need for a common code of ethics among public health professionals in Europe.  Use Kotter's Model based on the Theory of Change as a roadmap when creating the European public health code of ethics.  Treat the European code of ethics as a "living document".  Encourage further research on a European code of ethics.

SARS-CoV-2 infects children far less frequently than adults and when infected, children experience no or benign symptoms. Children further do not transmit the virus in any meaningful way. Despite these facts, many public health authorities recommend that all children above the age of 12 get vaccinated to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2. As a result, many schools, colleges, and universities require proof of vaccination for students to attend class, essentially coercing students to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The rationale presented by public health officials for recommending COVID-19 vaccination for children is threefold: a) To keep children from contracting COVID-19 and becoming seriously ill b) To stop children from transmitting SARS-COV-2 to each other, teachers, parents and grandparents c) It is needed to reach herd immunity. Consequently, this research investigates whether these hypotheses are correct and supported by the science and empirical data. If the principal points of departure are flawed, it follows that a policy to vaccinate children against COVID-19 would be irrational. The four main biomedical ethical principles, that is beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, are defined and explained to provide a universal, moral analytical framework that can aid public health policymakers in making morally and ethically sound decisions. The four main ethical principles are then applied to the policy and practice to coerce young people to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Vaccination plays a significant role in fighting diseases especially during epidemics. With the spread of epidemics such as Covid-19, the debate over compulsory vaccination is largely get around whether the creation of a public good takes precedence over the individuals' freedoms? And in the case of the acceptance of compulsion, which mechanisms can be manipulated to ensure it? The results of this research, which has been conducted through a descriptive-analytical-comparativemethod, demonstrate that the opponents of mandatory vaccination, relying on the prohibition of violating the right to life due to side effects of the vaccine and violation of right to privacy as well as emphasizing the individuals' freedom of conscious choice, maintain that the duty of states is only to try to provide the facilities which save the lives of the individuals and not compel them to comply with these attempts. However, advocates of compulsory vaccination, while defending the concept of public health as a public good and its priority over the protection of individual rights, put emphasis on the collective nature of right to health and present a variety of criminal and administrative sanctions in order to force the vaccination. Many western countries have adopted policies within this requirement by diversifying their various administrative and financial sanctions. In Iran, however, the lack of a legal system to provide adequate administrative sanctions particularly in the area of deprivation of social rights and access to public services, as well as encouraging mechanisms, can be an obstacle to ensuring this public interest.

Home health aides provide care to homebound older adults and those with chronic conditions. Aides were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccines when they became available. We examined aides’ perspectives towards COVID-19 vaccination. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 56 home health aides at a large not-for-profit home care agency in New York City. Results suggested that aides’ vaccination decisions were shaped by (1) information sources, beliefs, their health, and experiences providing care during COVID-19; (2) perceived susceptibility and severity of COVID-19; (3) perceived benefits of vaccination including protection from COVID-19, respect from colleagues and patients, and fulfillment of work-related requirements; (4) perceived barriers to vaccination including concerns about safety, efficacy, and side effects; and (5) cues to action including access to vaccination sites/appointments, vaccination mandates, question and answer sessions from trusted sources, and testimonials. Providing tailored information with support to address vaccination barriers could lead to improved vaccine uptake.

Home health aides provide care to homebound older adults and those with chronic conditions. Aides were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccines when they became available. We examined aides’ perspectives towards COVID-19 vaccination. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 56 home health aides at a large not-for-profit home care agency in New York City. Results suggested that aides’ vaccination decisions were shaped by (1) information sources, beliefs, their health, and experiences providing care during COVID-19; (2) perceived susceptibility and severity of COVID-19; (3) perceived benefits of vaccination including protection from COVID-19, respect from colleagues and patients, and fulfillment of work-related requirements; (4) perceived barriers to vaccination including concerns about safety, efficacy, and side effects; and (5) cues to action including access to vaccination sites/appointments, vaccination mandates, question and answer sessions from trusted sources, and testimonial...

Background: Vaccine hesitancy is a considerable issue in European countries and leads to low coverage rates. After a long debate, Italy has made vaccination mandatory for admission to its schools. Methods: In the NAVIDAD study (a cross-sectional multicentre study), a 63-item questionnaire was administered to 1820 pregnant women from 15 Italian cities. The questionnaire assessed the interviewee's opinion on mandatory vaccines, as well as their socioeconomic status, sources of information about vaccines, confidence in the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS), and intention to vaccinate their newborn. Results: Information sources play a key role in determining the opinion on restoration of mandatory vaccines; in particular, women who obtained information from anti-vaccination movements are less likely to accept the vaccines (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.21-0.58, p < 0.001). Women who had confidence in healthcare professional information agreed more on mandatory vaccination than did the other women (OR: 2.66, 95% CI: 1.62-4.36, p < 0.001); those who perceived that healthcare professionals have economic interest in child immunization and who declared that healthcare providers inform only on vaccinations benefits not on risks were less likely to agree on compulsory vaccination (OR: 0.66, CI 95%: 0.46-0.96, p = 0.03; OR: 0.66, CI 95%: 0.46-0.95, p = 0.03, respectively). Conclusion: Information sources and confidence towards health professionals are the main determinants of acceptance of mandatory vaccine restoration. To increase the acceptability of the restoration and reduce vaccine hesitancy, these aspects need to be strengthened.

The Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table is a group of scientific experts and health system leaders who evaluate and report on emerging evidence relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform Ontario's response. Our mandate is to provide weekly summaries of relevant scientific evidence for the COVID-19 Health Coordination Table of the Province of Ontario, integrating information from existing scientific tables, Ontario's universities and agencies, and the best global evidence. The Science Table summarizes its findings for the Health Coordination Table and the public in Science Briefs.

With the rapid emergence of COVID-19 in 2019 and its global catastrophic consequences, researchers engaged in a race against time to develop, study, and distribute COVID-19 vaccines. 1 Despite the dire need for a quick solution against rising SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID-19) infection rates, these vaccines were not received with open arms by many. By conducting sequential processes in parallel, clinical trials done by companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer/BioNTech, and Moderna passed through phases I and II rather quickly. 2-5 From these clinical trials, each company has concluded their vaccine to be effective and safe for administration to the general public. 2-5 Various opinions have continued to circulate both inside and outside the health community on whether

Although a safe, effective, and licensed coronavirus vaccine does not yet exist, there is already controversy over how it ought to be allocated. Justice is clearly at stake, but it is unclear what justice requires in the international distribution of a scarce vaccine during a pandemic. Many are condemning ‘vaccine nationalism’ as an obstacle to equitable global distribution. We argue that limited national partiality in allocating vaccines will be a component of justice rather than an obstacle to it. For there are role-based and community-embedded responsibilities to take care of one’s own, which constitute legitimate moral reasons for some identity-related prioritisation. Furthermore, a good form of vaccine nationalism prioritises one’s own without denying or ignoring duties derived from a principle of equal worth, according to which all persons, regardless of citizenship or identity, equally deserve vaccine-induced protection from COVID-19. Rather than dismissing nationalism as a t...

Faith communities are challenged during the COVID-19 pandemic to urge their members to take a decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. The relationship between religion and medical sciences, especially with regard to vaccination, has not always complemented one another, but there is general agreement amongst religions that vaccination is acceptable to save lives. The purpose of vaccination is to secure herd or population immunity, but the spread of misinformation about vaccines and conspiracy theories, some based on religious beliefs, put all vaccination efforts at risk. It ultimately influences the decision people should make to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. The question of mandatory vaccination for all and vaccination based on an individual decision according to conscience seems like a paradox, but the comprehensive second-level normative ethical approach or ethic of responsibility proposed by De Villiers (2020) can be helpful to address this dichotomy. This is in line with eth...

Historically and etymologically, curfews are public health measures imposed to guard against risks to health and safety. On occasion they have been deployed oppressively, disproportionately and without proper regard to their ramifications. It is important that they not be used during a pandemic unless there is sufficient medico-scientific reason to conclude that they will serve a constructive purpose and that they are the least restrictive available governmental response. Inevitably, they impact adversely on a variety of human rights, particularly freedom of movement. They isolate and inhibit human connection. However, in the context of a worldwide pandemic causing terrible loss of life, there are occasions where they may be a necessary adjunct to these restrictions. This article identifies a variety of scenarios in which curfews have been imposed on different populations and identifies legal challenges that have been made to them. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic it reviews the Kenyan judgment of Law Society of Kenya v Mutyambai [2020] eKLR and the Victorian Supreme Court judgment of Loielo v Giles [2020] VSC 722. It contends that the carefully reasoned decisions in each instance constitute an important reassurance that decision-making about a lengthy curfew in order to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus was reasoned, rights-aware and suitably responsive to the risks posed.

Community attitudes towards mandated vaccinations against COVID-19 vary significantly from country to country. Views on the issue are strongly held. However, in Australia opposition to vaccination is at low levels according to a leading public opinion poll, although there has been vocal opposition to "no jab, no work" directives from some. There is relative consistency in the framing of directives that designated categories of workers across a number of Australian States are required to be vaccinated to continue in their employment, especially in the health care sector. A number of challenges against such directives have been commenced in five States in Australia. However, decisions from the Fair Work Commission, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and the New South Wales Supreme Court have given a clear indication that in most scenarios such directives are likely to be found lawful, with precedence being given to the public health rights of the community over individual assertions of rights, in the difficult circumstances of a country still emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic, at a time when numbers of infections in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria remain significant, and when Australia has not yet opened up to the world.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. The emergence of the reliability of vaccines, the fear of possible vaccination-related side effects, and mass-media information created situations in which families and even health professionals developed hesitations regarding the need for vaccines, with a consequent decrease in vaccination coverage. This study discusses ethical issues and responsibility for the possible side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination raised by vaccination policies.

Several articles published recently in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice raise important questions about how the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines have been and are being measured. First, Fung, Jones, and Doshi explained that statistical biases, particularly the case counting window bias, can greatly exaggerate the perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in observational studies. A follow-up article by myself explained that this effect may be understated, due to the often accompanied definitional bias, and also that these biases could likewise exaggerate the perceived safety of COVID-19 vaccines in observational studies. Doshi and Fung then added further to the discussion by finding issues with case counting windows in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, relating to vaccine effectiveness. In this final article, I shall provide an example justifying my prior concern about counting windows in observational studies concerning safety, and further explain that there are also concerns around adverse effect counting windows in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, which may have exaggerated claims about vaccine safety.

Background and aim: Healthcare workers, including dentists, are at risk of contracting and transmitting infectious diseases despite the availability of vaccines and clear guidelines on preventive measures. In Georgia, hepatitis B, influenza, measles, and rubella are mandatory preventive immunizations for medical personnel employed in dental clinics. Material and methods: This cross-sectional study aimed to explore the knowledge and attitudes of dentists towards vaccination against these diseases. A questionnaire was administered to a selective group of 165 dentists randomly selected from the 2,435 certified dentists with active status in Georgia. Results: The study found that while most dentists were aware of the mandatory vaccines, there were knowledge gaps regarding the potential severe complications of these diseases and the effectiveness of vaccination. Most dentists had positive attitudes towards vaccination, but a significant proportion reported concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Conclusions: The study highlights the need for continuing education and awareness-raising initiatives among dentists regarding the importance of vaccination against infectious diseases, which could inform future policies and educational programs in dentistry, with the ultimate goal of reducing the transmission of infectious diseases among healthcare workers and patients.

The Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table is a group of scientific experts and health system leaders who evaluate and report on emerging evidence relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform Ontario's response. Our mandate is to provide weekly summaries of relevant scientific evidence for the COVID-19 Health Coordination Table of the Province of Ontario, integrating information from existing scientific tables, Ontario's universities and agencies, and the best global evidence. The Science Table summarizes its findings for the Health Coordination Table and the public in Science Briefs.

Since its inception, the 2019 coronavirus disease (Covid-19) outbreak has become a major health problem. At the same time, countries worldwide have been waiting for a Covid-19 vaccine to be sufficiently available. When the Covid-19 vaccine became available, several countries began to adopt mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policies. However, mandatory Covid-19 vaccination has received strong opposition from the start. Rejections have emerged from various parties, including from libertarians. The researcher observes that the current research attempting to analyze the mandatory Covid-19 vaccination still revolves around the perspective of human rights and utilitarianism. Then, this study aims to explore and find out how the libertarian perspective toward mandatory vaccination. Normative research methods with conceptual and comparative approaches were used in this study. After analyzing secondary data sources with prescriptive analysis methods, this study finally succeeded in finding that mandatory Covid-19 vaccination has its place, legitimacy, and justification on the ideological side of libertarianism. It is because libertarians accept that the government may require a mandatory vaccination program against Covid-19. In addition, due to the libertarian framework, the government is still justified in enforcing coercive policies that violate the rights of certain individuals if the policy is necessary to avoid greater harm to others.

RESUMO O objetivo deste artigo é defender que o ato de vacinar é moralmente obrigatório e, como tal, não estaríamos autorizados a deixar de fazê-lo, sob uma perspectiva normativa, qual seja, a do consequencialismo coletivo. Segundo tal visão, uma ação é moralmente correta se, e somente se, todos os indivíduos aptos agem segundo regras de tal forma a trazer os melhores resultados. Assim, o resultado da regra de que devemos nos vacinar apenas trará os melhores resultados se todos os indivíduos aptos agirem de acordo com as regras e recomendações para evitar o maior dano possível à sociedade. Para tentar mostrar a obrigatoriedade do ato de se vacinar, primeiro, explicarei a base normativa que adoto, o já indicado consequencialismo coletivo, procurando mostrar que se o consequencialismo coletivo for verdadeiro, então todos os indivíduos aptos compartilham a obrigação de se vacinar. Em um segundo momento, enfrento uma dificuldade, qual seja, a de que, aparentemente, os indivíduos teriam o direito de rejeitar a vacinação em nome de sua liberdade de escolha. Nesse ponto, pretendo argumentar que ninguém tem o direito de expor terceiros a um dano conhecido sem o consentimento deles e, adicionalmente, que a obrigação compartilhada é mais forte-em termos de razões-do que o pretenso direito a não se vacinar. Por fim, avento a hipótese de como devemos motivar as pessoas a se engajarem a cumprir a obrigação compartilhada de se vacinar e se a coerção para vacinação é plausível.

RESUMO Trata-se de um ensaio baseado em decisão judicial do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Santa Catarina, que desobrigou à vacinação uma professora municipal do estado. A liminar, em Mandado de Segurança, foi cassada por meio de um agravo de instrumento de autoria do Ministério Público. Neste ensaio, são discutidos os fundamentos do julgador para a concessão da liminar e os argumentos apresentados pelo apelante, enquanto faz-se uma análise do ponto de vista da saúde coletiva e do direito sanitário, à luz da decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre a razoabilidade e proporcionalidade da vacina obrigatória.

Savulescu (forthcoming) argues that it may be ethically acceptable for governments to require citizens be vaccinated against COVID-19. He also recommends that governments consider providing monetary or in-kind incentives to citizens to increase vaccination rates. In this response, we argue against mandatory vaccination and vaccine incentivisation, and instead suggest that targeted public health messaging and a greater responsiveness to the concerns of vaccine-hesitant individuals would be the best strategy to address low vaccination rates.

This paper will answer two questions related to whether there is a need for sanctions for those who refuse to be vaccinated, what sanctions are appropriate from the perspective of interest theory, and what is the legal basis for imposing sanctions for those who refuse to be vaccinated in Indonesia. This study uses a sociolegal approach from the perspective of interest theory, it is found that sanctions can not only be given but must be given to those who refuse to be vaccinated. According to this perspective, the appropriate sanction is not fines or imprisonment, but deprivation of the right to socialize. The legal basis for imposing sanctions for those who refuse to be vaccinated is Article 5 of Law 4/1984 and PerPres12/2021. The sanctions referred to are administrative in nature in the form of termination of social security or social assistance, postponement or termination of government administration services, and fines. These sanctions do not contribute to stopping the spread of the Covid-19 virus, so it is recommended that amendments to these provisions are necessary.

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

This qualitative research study, a critical content analysis, explores Canadian media reporting of childhood in Canada during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Popular media plays an important role in representing and perpetuating the dominant social discourse in highly literate societies. In Canadian media, the effects of the pandemic on children and adolescents’ health and wellbeing are overshadowed by discussions of the potential risk they pose to adults. The results of this empirical research highlight how young people in Canada have been uniquely impacted by the COVID-19 global pandemic. Two dominant narratives emerged from the data: children were presented “as a risk” to vulnerable persons and older adults and “at risk” of adverse health outcomes from contracting COVID-19 and from pandemic lockdown restrictions. This reflects how childhood was constructed in Canadian society during the pandemic, particularly how children’s experiences are described in relation to adults. Throughou...

Many healthcare goods, such as surgical instruments, textiles and gloves, are manufactured in unregulated factories and sweatshops where, amongst other labour rights violations, workers are subject to considerable occupational health risks. In this paper we undertake an ethical analysis of the supply of sweatshop-produced surgical goods to healthcare providers, with a specific focus on the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. We contend that while labour abuses and occupational health deficiencies are morally unacceptable in the production of any commodity, an additional wrong is incurred when the health of certain populations is secured in ways that endanger the health and well-being of people working and living elsewhere. While some measures have been taken to better regulate the supply chain to healthcare providers in the UK, further action is needed to ensure that surgical goods are sourced from suppliers who protect the labour and occupational health rights of their workers.

Taking a principled approach is crucial to the successful use of AI in pandemic management, say Stephen Cave and colleagues Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed. This collection of articles was proposed by the WHO Department of Digital Health and Innovation and commissioned by The BMJ. The BMJ retained full editorial control over external peer review, editing, and publication of these articles. Open access fees were funded by WHO.

July and August must be a period of intense preparation for our reasonable worst-case scenario for health in the winter that we set out in this report, including a resurgence of COVID-19, which might be greater than that seen in the spring. The assumptions that we have made should be tested as new evidence emerges (including analysis of the evidence from the first wave) to enable prevention and mitigation strategies to be adapted and refined. Mitigation strategies should not pose further disadvantage to the most vulnerable in society or the highest risk patients or communities. To maximise their effectiveness (and to ensure they do not exacerbate inequalities), preparations for winter must be informed by engagement with patients, carers, public and healthcare professionals (as we have benefitted from in this report); and, whenever possible, be developed through co-production. Implementation of prevention and mitigation strategies requires enhanced coordination, collaboration and dat...

Due to COVID-19’s strain on health systems across the globe, triage protocols determine how to allocate scarce medical resources with the worthy goal of maximising the number of lives saved. However, due to racial biases and long-standing health inequities, the common method of ranking patients based on impersonal numeric representations of their morbidity is associated with disproportionately pronounced racial disparities. In response, policymakers have issued statements of solidarity. However, translating support into responsive COVID-19 policy is rife with complexity. Triage does not easily lend itself to race-based exceptions. Reordering triage queues based on an individual patient’s racial affiliation has been considered but may be divisive and difficult to implement. And while COVID-19 hospital policies may be presented as rigidly focused on saving the most lives, many make exceptions for those deemed worthy by policymakers such as front-line healthcare workers, older physicia...

"Civil liability for defects in vaccines", LL.M. Thesis.
The aim of the present thesis is to analyse the complex issue of civil liability that is likely to arise from the production or administration of a defective vaccine. Vaccines are substances activating the immune response of an organism, in order to defend itself against infectious diseases and bacteria. As substances that are administered for this purpose, i.e., the prevention and promotion of public health, they constitute social goods, but, simultaneously, commercial goods that are trading on markets and are therefore governed by rules for their production and distribution. Key legal aspects presented, regarding the civil liability, are among others: errors that occurred during the clinical trials stage, liability of the producer of a defective product, as well as the civil liability of the State, that is activated under certain conditions (e.g., when an excessively harmful result occurs from vaccination that the State itself declared as mandatory). Related court decisions concerning compensation after harmful vaccination are presented, being based either on the matter of a defective vaccine, or on a vaccination that caused serious adverse events, such as death (since, as with any medicine, side effects can possibly arise after the administration of a vaccine). Finally, the issue of mandatory or non-mandatory vaccination and the way this categorisation affects civil liability is also reviewed.

This paper investigates the susceptibility to anti-vaccine rhetoric in the vaccine-hesitant population. Based on the literature on attitudes and attitude change it was assumed that susceptibility to anti-vaccine arguments may be related to personal experience with vaccination and to the strength of vaccine hesitant attitudes. The first aim of the study was to investigate the relation between personal experience with post-vaccination side effects and acceptance of select categories of anti-vaccine arguments. The second aim was to compare whether vaccination deniers and the vaccine-ambiguous group differ in their susceptibility to these arguments. The online survey was run in Poland on a final sample of 492 vaccine hesitant respondents. Results indicate that individuals who declared a negative experience with vaccination were persuaded by all types of anti-vaccine arguments. Moreover, pre-existing anti-vaccine skepticism may cause individuals to interpret negative symptoms as conseque...

Antecedentes: La pandemia de la COVID-19 continúa reportando casos y fallecimientos a nivel mundial y nacional. La vacuna contra COVID-19, ha logrado contener la propagación de la enfermedad, sin embargo, todavía no tiene una aceptación total. Objetivo: Determinar el nivel de conocimiento, actitudes y aceptabilidad de la vacuna contra la COVID-19 y factores asociados, en estudiantes de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras (UNAH) en año 2021. Métodos: Estudio observacional, transversal, descriptivo con análisis de asociación. La población de estudio fueron los estudiantes de la UNAH. Resultados: Un total de 1,417 estudiantes participaron, de los cuales el 52.3% (741) no estaban vacunados contra la COVID-19. Se encontró que el 93.5% (693/741) aceptaría aplicarse la vacuna. Se realizó una regresión logística binaria múltiple reportando que, el grupo de edad de 40 a 44 años tendrían mayor posibilidad de no aceptabilidad de la vacuna (OR=17, IC95% 2.462-120.661; p=0.004). Con res...

Should people get vaccinated for the sake of others? What could ground—and limit—the normative claim that people ought to do so? In this paper, we propose a reasons-based consequentialist account of vaccination for the benefit of others. We outline eight harm-based and probabilistic factors that, we argue, give people moral reasons to get vaccinated. Instead of understanding other-directed vaccination in terms of binary moral duties (i.e., where people either have or do not have a moral duty to get vaccinated), we develop a scalar approach according to which people can have stronger or weaker moral reasons to get vaccinated in view of the moral good of vaccination. One advantage of our approach is that it can capture why a person might have strong moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine A, but only weak moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine B. We discuss theoretical strengths of our approach and provide a case study of vaccination against COVID-19 to demonstrate its practical significance.

Background In the initial phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, difficult decisions had to be made on the allocation of testing resources. Similar situations can arise in future pandemics. Therefore, careful consideration of who should be tested is an important part of pandemic preparedness. We focus on four ethical aspects of that problem: how to prioritize scarce testing resources, the regulation of commercial direct-to-consumer test services, testing of unauthorized immigrants, and obligatory testing. Main text The distribution of scarce resources for testing: We emphasize the use of needs-based criteria, but also acknowledge the importance of choosing a testing strategy that contributes efficiently to stopping the overall spread of the disease. Commercial direct-to-consumer test services: Except in cases of acute scarcity, such services will in practice have to be allowed. We propose that they should be subject to regulation that ensures test quality and adequate information to users....

Background SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for a pandemic since the beginning of 2020. Vaccine arrival brings a concrete solution to fight the virus. However, vaccine hesitancy is high. In France, the first available vaccine was Comirnaty from Pfizer-BioNTech. Shared decision-making, based on tools such as patient decision aids (PtDAs), can help patients make an informed choice about vaccination with Comirnaty. Objective The French College of Teachers in General Practice (CNGE) aimed to create a PtDA for people who have to decide whether they will receive the Comirnaty vaccine. Methods Development of the PtDA was performed according to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The initial design was based on a literature review and semistructured interviews with 17 patients to explore and clarify patients’ expectations. A first draft of the PtDA was then alpha tested by a patient expert group and a physician expert group. The PtDA was finally beta tested in 14 preva...

Background SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for a pandemic since the beginning of 2020. Vaccine arrival brings a concrete solution to fight the virus. However, vaccine hesitancy is high. In France, the first available vaccine was Comirnaty from Pfizer-BioNTech. Shared decision-making, based on tools such as patient decision aids (PtDAs), can help patients make an informed choice about vaccination with Comirnaty. Objective The French College of Teachers in General Practice (CNGE) aimed to create a PtDA for people who have to decide whether they will receive the Comirnaty vaccine. Methods Development of the PtDA was performed according to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The initial design was based on a literature review and semistructured interviews with 17 patients to explore and clarify patients’ expectations. A first draft of the PtDA was then alpha tested by a patient expert group and a physician expert group. The PtDA was finally beta tested in 14 preva...

In all Western countries, the vaccination campaign against COVID-19 encountered some resistance. To overcome vaccine inertia and hesitancy, governments have used a variety of strategies and policy instruments. These instruments can be placed on a &#39;ladder of intrusiveness&#39;, starting from voluntary tools based on simple information and persuasion, through material incentives and disincentives of varying nature and magnitude, to highly coercive tools, such as lockdown for the unvaccinated and the introduction of the vaccination mandate. Italy&#39;s experience during the vaccination campaign against Covid provides an ideal observational point for starting to investigate this issue: not only was Italy among the top countries with the highest percentage of people vaccinated at the beginning of 2022, but—at least compared to other European countries—it was also one of the countries that had gradually introduced the most intrusive measures to increase vaccination compliance. In the ...