Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights

In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Public Health Ethics Oxford University Press

In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights

Wilkenfeld, Daniel A; Johnson, Christa M
Public Health Ethics , Volume 15 (1): 14 – Apr 15, 2022
Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/in-defense-of-vaccine-mandates-an-argument-from-consent-rights-Hnpyen2W1t

References (55)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. Available online at www.phe.oxfordjournals.org
ISSN
1754-9973
eISSN
1754-9981
DOI
10.1093/phe/phac005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

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.

Journal

Public Health Ethics – Oxford University Press

Published: Apr 15, 2022

There are no references for this article.