In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights

Abstract This article will focus on the ethical issues of vaccine mandates and stake claim to the relatively extreme position that outright requirements for people to receive the vaccine are ethically correct at both the governmental and institutional levels. One novel strategy employed here will be...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Public health ethics 2022-04, Vol.15 (1), p.27-40
Hauptverfasser: Wilkenfeld, Daniel A, Johnson, Christa M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 40
container_issue 1
container_start_page 27
container_title Public health ethics
container_volume 15
creator Wilkenfeld, Daniel A
Johnson, Christa M
description Abstract This article will focus on the ethical issues of vaccine mandates and stake claim to the relatively extreme position that outright requirements for people to receive the vaccine are ethically correct at both the governmental and institutional levels. One novel strategy employed here will be to argue that deontological considerations pertaining to consent rights cut as much in favor of mandating vaccines as against them. The presumption seems to be that arguments from consent speak semi-definitively against forcing people to inject something into their bodies, and so any argument in favor of mandates must produce different and overriding logical and ethical considerations. Our central claim will be that the same logic that might seem to prohibit vaccine mandates as violations of consent actually supports such mandates when viewed from the perspective of the potential bystander who might otherwise be exposed to COVID-19.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/phe/phac005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9383732</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/phe/phac005</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2705751030</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-c991ef5228fd3709ec4e326433f9e94cc2454217737d4706d20b7cb76fd6c08e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1Lw0AQxRdRbK2evEtOIkh0v5LNelBK_SpUBFGvy3Yz20aSbMwmgv-9K61FLx6GmWF-vHk8hA4JPiNYsvNmCaG0wTjZQkMiEh5LmZHtzSzYAO15_4ZxSjlNdtGAJVKmnOEhuprW0TVYqD1Ezkav2piihuhB17nuwF9E4zoat4u-grqLbOuqaOICG5anYrHs_D7asbr0cLDuI_Rye_M8uY9nj3fTyXgWG05oFxspCdiE0szmTGAJhgOjwQKzEiQ3hvKEUyIEEzkXOM0pngszF6nNU4MzYCN0udJt-nkFuQkOWl2qpi0q3X4qpwv191IXS7VwH0qyjAlGg8DJWqB17z34TlWFN1CWugbXe0UFTkRCMMMBPV2hpnXet2A3bwhW35GrELlaRx7oo9_ONuxPxgE4XgGub_5V-gJMNon8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2705751030</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wilkenfeld, Daniel A ; Johnson, Christa M</creator><creatorcontrib>Wilkenfeld, Daniel A ; Johnson, Christa M</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract This article will focus on the ethical issues of vaccine mandates and stake claim to the relatively extreme position that outright requirements for people to receive the vaccine are ethically correct at both the governmental and institutional levels. One novel strategy employed here will be to argue that deontological considerations pertaining to consent rights cut as much in favor of mandating vaccines as against them. The presumption seems to be that arguments from consent speak semi-definitively against forcing people to inject something into their bodies, and so any argument in favor of mandates must produce different and overriding logical and ethical considerations. Our central claim will be that the same logic that might seem to prohibit vaccine mandates as violations of consent actually supports such mandates when viewed from the perspective of the potential bystander who might otherwise be exposed to COVID-19.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1754-9973</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1754-9981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1754-9981</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/phe/phac005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35996430</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Original</subject><ispartof>Public health ethics, 2022-04, Vol.15 (1), p.27-40</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. Available online at www.phe.oxfordjournals.org 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. Available online at www.phe.oxfordjournals.org.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-c991ef5228fd3709ec4e326433f9e94cc2454217737d4706d20b7cb76fd6c08e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-c991ef5228fd3709ec4e326433f9e94cc2454217737d4706d20b7cb76fd6c08e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3474-6383 ; 0000-0003-2600-3237</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1584,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35996430$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wilkenfeld, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Christa M</creatorcontrib><title>In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights</title><title>Public health ethics</title><addtitle>Public Health Ethics</addtitle><description>Abstract This article will focus on the ethical issues of vaccine mandates and stake claim to the relatively extreme position that outright requirements for people to receive the vaccine are ethically correct at both the governmental and institutional levels. One novel strategy employed here will be to argue that deontological considerations pertaining to consent rights cut as much in favor of mandating vaccines as against them. The presumption seems to be that arguments from consent speak semi-definitively against forcing people to inject something into their bodies, and so any argument in favor of mandates must produce different and overriding logical and ethical considerations. Our central claim will be that the same logic that might seem to prohibit vaccine mandates as violations of consent actually supports such mandates when viewed from the perspective of the potential bystander who might otherwise be exposed to COVID-19.</description><subject>Original</subject><issn>1754-9973</issn><issn>1754-9981</issn><issn>1754-9981</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1Lw0AQxRdRbK2evEtOIkh0v5LNelBK_SpUBFGvy3Yz20aSbMwmgv-9K61FLx6GmWF-vHk8hA4JPiNYsvNmCaG0wTjZQkMiEh5LmZHtzSzYAO15_4ZxSjlNdtGAJVKmnOEhuprW0TVYqD1Ezkav2piihuhB17nuwF9E4zoat4u-grqLbOuqaOICG5anYrHs_D7asbr0cLDuI_Rye_M8uY9nj3fTyXgWG05oFxspCdiE0szmTGAJhgOjwQKzEiQ3hvKEUyIEEzkXOM0pngszF6nNU4MzYCN0udJt-nkFuQkOWl2qpi0q3X4qpwv191IXS7VwH0qyjAlGg8DJWqB17z34TlWFN1CWugbXe0UFTkRCMMMBPV2hpnXet2A3bwhW35GrELlaRx7oo9_ONuxPxgE4XgGub_5V-gJMNon8</recordid><startdate>20220401</startdate><enddate>20220401</enddate><creator>Wilkenfeld, Daniel A</creator><creator>Johnson, Christa M</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3474-6383</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2600-3237</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220401</creationdate><title>In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights</title><author>Wilkenfeld, Daniel A ; Johnson, Christa M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-c991ef5228fd3709ec4e326433f9e94cc2454217737d4706d20b7cb76fd6c08e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Original</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wilkenfeld, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Christa M</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Public health ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wilkenfeld, Daniel A</au><au>Johnson, Christa M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights</atitle><jtitle>Public health ethics</jtitle><addtitle>Public Health Ethics</addtitle><date>2022-04-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>27</spage><epage>40</epage><pages>27-40</pages><issn>1754-9973</issn><issn>1754-9981</issn><eissn>1754-9981</eissn><abstract>Abstract This article will focus on the ethical issues of vaccine mandates and stake claim to the relatively extreme position that outright requirements for people to receive the vaccine are ethically correct at both the governmental and institutional levels. One novel strategy employed here will be to argue that deontological considerations pertaining to consent rights cut as much in favor of mandating vaccines as against them. The presumption seems to be that arguments from consent speak semi-definitively against forcing people to inject something into their bodies, and so any argument in favor of mandates must produce different and overriding logical and ethical considerations. Our central claim will be that the same logic that might seem to prohibit vaccine mandates as violations of consent actually supports such mandates when viewed from the perspective of the potential bystander who might otherwise be exposed to COVID-19.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>35996430</pmid><doi>10.1093/phe/phac005</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3474-6383</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2600-3237</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1754-9973
ispartof Public health ethics, 2022-04, Vol.15 (1), p.27-40
issn 1754-9973
1754-9981
1754-9981
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9383732
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Original
title In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T05%3A04%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=In%20Defense%20of%20Vaccine%20Mandates:%20An%20Argument%20from%20Consent%20Rights&rft.jtitle=Public%20health%20ethics&rft.au=Wilkenfeld,%20Daniel%20A&rft.date=2022-04-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=27&rft.epage=40&rft.pages=27-40&rft.issn=1754-9973&rft.eissn=1754-9981&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/phe/phac005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2705751030%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2705751030&rft_id=info:pmid/35996430&rft_oup_id=10.1093/phe/phac005&rfr_iscdi=true