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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Public health ethics 2022-04, Vol.15 (1), p.27-40 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 |