Maxwell Smith

The workshop, Coercing for Health: Transdisciplinary Approaches to the Ethics of Coercive Public Health Policies was held at the University of Oxford on July 3rd and 4th, 2024. This paper provides both a summary of the workshop proceedings and reflections and directions for future research on coercive public health measures. The workshop consisted of four key parts: defining coercion; history and legal analysis of coercion; public health ethics perspectives on coercion; experiences of coercive public health measures. According to our reflections, some important questions remaining for further research include: what is the difference between coercion and enforcement? Who gets to define and address coercion? How do structural factors affect health and experiences of coercion? We encourage others to continue to work on this important area, to ensure the ethically acceptable and thoughtful implementation of any future coercive measures in the sphere of public health.

Dr Kirk Milhoan, chair of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, recently shared his views on vaccine mandates, stating, “If there is no choice, then informed consent is an illusion… Without consent, it is medical battery.”1 Milhoan’s assessment of vaccine mandates is reflected in some states’ decisions to ban them. For example, speaking on his state’s plan to do away with vaccine mandates, Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo claims, “In medical ethics, you cannot obtain informed consent for a medical treatment if there’s coercion. And a mandate is coercion.”2 Does the administration of vaccines in contexts where they are ‘mandatory’ constitute medical battery? Is it impossible to obtain valid consent for vaccination under such conditions? A careful examination of these questions seems more critical than ever. We are therefore grateful to colleagues who commented on our feature article tackling this subject.3 Regrettably, present space does not permit engagement with all our interlocutors and their valuable arguments. Instead, we will use this opportunity to briefly respond to some important themes. First, we reiterate and emphasise that the interest of our feature article is in determining whether claims like those expressed by Dr Milhoan and Dr Ladapo should be counted as compelling or obvious refutations of vaccine mandates. We conclude that they should not. We do not argue that Kiener’s Recipient-Focus-View ‘morally validates coercive measures like vaccine mandates’,4 as some suggest, …

An ethical and legal obligation generally exists for informed consent to be obtained prior to the administration of medical interventions. This includes vaccinations. For an individual’s informed consent to be valid, it must be given voluntarily. Hence, when individuals are required to be vaccinated—for example, as a condition of employment—we might ask whether this impairs the voluntariness of their informed consent, thereby rendering it invalid. If this turns out to be the case, then this would count as a pro tanto reason to think vaccine mandates are unethical. Assuming vaccine mandates count as ‘coercive’, interrogating this question requires an account of consent under third-party coercion, since the pressure or coercion exerted by vaccine mandates is exerted by third parties, such as employers, rather than the recipients of consent. Accordingly, this paper draws on Maximilian Kiener’s Interpersonal Consenter–Consentee Justification account of the voluntariness of medical consent under third-party coercion to develop an explicit argument as to why vaccine mandates do not vitiate the voluntariness of informed consent. Vaccine mandates do not necessarily impair the voluntariness of informed consent because, in such cases, the consent-receiver neither contributes to a vaccine mandate’s coercive threat nor wrongs the consent-giver in any way. Consent is not obtained by coercion in such cases, even though it may be motivated by it. The mere presence of third-party coercion does not invalidate consent since third parties cannot directly negate the voluntariness of consent.

This open access casebook addresses complex and important ethical challenges arising when health-related research in conducted in the context of epidemics and pandemics. This book provides contextually-rich real-world case studies illustrating research ethics issues encountered by researchers, ethics reviewers and regulators around the globe during the COVID-19 pandemic. The accompanying commentaries outline relevant conceptual approaches and ethical considerations. These promote understanding and reflection on relevant ethical issues, ethical approaches and competing considerations in a manner supporting thoughtful evaluation of their implications for practice. As such the casebook is relevant to academic and professional audiences with an interest in global health, research ethics, and outbreaks and epidemics.

Some organisations make vaccination a condition of employment. This means prospective employees must demonstrate they have been vaccinated (eg, against measles) to be hired. But it also means organisations must decide whether _existing_ employees should be expected to meet newly introduced vaccination conditions (eg, against COVID-19). Unlike prospective employees who will not be _hired_ if they do not meet vaccination conditions, existing employees who fail to meet new vaccination conditions risk being _fired_. The latter seems worse than the former. Hence, objections to vaccination mandates commonly centre on the harms that will be visited on existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated. However, because this objection does not necessarily entail the claim that vaccination is unnecessary for the effective and safe performance of certain jobs, those making this objection should have less of an objection, or no objection at all (at least on these grounds), to introducing vaccination requirements in some cases for _prospective_ employees. Yet, in this paper, I shall argue that if one has reason to believe vaccination requirements can be justified for prospective employees, one should also believe they are justified for existing employees _despite_ any asymmetry in consequences experienced by the two groups. As a consequence, common objections made against vaccination mandates grounded solely in the harms that may be experienced by existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated should be considered unpersuasive.

The intervention ladder, developed by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, is a framework intended to help evaluate the ethical acceptability and justification of public health interventions according to their intrusion on liberty.1 In their recent article, Paetkau2 argues ‘the ladder obscures potential interventions that operate on a systemic rather than individual level’ (p. 1) and that ‘it is crucial that systemic interventions not be left off the table when considering potential concrete interventions’ (p. 3), leading them to propose instead the ‘intervention stairway’. Yet, in this commentary we argue the intervention ladder does not delimit the sorts of public health interventions that may be considered to address a public health issue, although it may speak to their putative justification. Hence, despite its other considerable shortcomings,3 4 there is no need, as Paetkau argues, to broaden the intervention ladder to include systemic factors. Contrary to Paetkau’s claim, the intervention ladder does not preclude policymakers from considering systemic factors’ impact on health outcomes or the public health interventions and strategies that could be implemented to address them. Paetkau adduces the example of measures to protect patients, healthcare workers and healthcare capacity from the threat of infectious diseases. They argue that certain …

Research conducted during epidemics may warrant adaptations or adaptive designs owing to practical constraints, time pressures, uncertainty, the importance of flexibility, and the potential for research to detract from epidemic response. Adapting research entails choosing different research designs or methods if research goals, contexts or constraints justify or require a different approach. Adaptive research, by contrast, is a type of research that prospectively plans for modifications after research has been initiated, while maintaining the validity and integrity of the research. While adaptation and adaptive designs introduce an important degree of flexibility to research conducted during epidemics and help to address research objectives and constraints, adaptation and adaptive designs require close ethical scrutiny and are no different from other research in that they are expected to align with universally accepted ethical standards. Important ethical questions exist regarding the conditions that justify adaptations to research, the kinds of adaptive research designs that can be ethically justified, and how ethics review bodies ought to evaluate such novel approaches to research in epidemic contexts. The five cases included in this chapter prompt reflection on the ethical considerations and implications of adapting research in response to epidemic-related risks and the public health measures deployed in response to those risks, as well as the ethical implications of not adapting research in such contexts. These cases also highlight ethical questions and issues arising during the conduct of adaptive trials, including when treatments under study, treatment doses, sample size, and other study features are reviewed in response to evolving evidence. This chapter invites reflection on these key ethical dimensions when considering adaptive designs and adaptations to standard research procedures during epidemics. What these cases make clear is that adaptive designs and adaptations to research do not reduce the need for rigorous scientific evaluation and adherence to universal ethical standards, and must be explicitly ethically justified and reviewed through transparent and inclusive processes.

IntroductionThe value of a short life characterized by disability has been hotly debated in the literature on fetal and neonatal outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to summarize the available empirical literature on the experiences of families in the context of trisomy 13 and 18 (T13/18) with subsequent thematic analysis of the 17 included articles.FindingsThemes constructed include (1) Pride as Resistance, (2) Negotiating Normalcy and (3) The Significance of Time.InterpretationOur thematic analysis was guided by the moral experience framework conceived by Hunt and Carnevale (2011) in association with the VOICE (Views On Interdisciplinary Childhood Ethics) collaborative research group.RelevanceThis article will be of interest and value to healthcare professionals and bioethicists who support families navigating the medically and ethically complex landscape of T13/18.

In his 2000 book, From Chaos to Coercion: Detention and the Control of Tuberculosis, Richard Coker makes a number of important observations and arguments regarding the use of coercive public health measures in response to infectious disease threats. In particular, Coker argues that we have a tendency to neglect public health threats and then demand immediate action, which can leave policymakers with fewer effective options and may require (or may be perceived as requiring) more aggressive, coercive measures to achieve public health goals. While Coker makes a convincing case as to why we should find it ethically problematic when governments find themselves in this position and resort to coercion, left outstanding is the question of whether this should preclude governments and health authorities from using coercion if and when they do find themselves in this position. In this paper, I argue that, while we should consider it ethically objectionable when governments resort to coercion because they have neglected a public health threat, its causes, and other possible responses to that threat, this should not then necessarily rule out the use of coercion in such circumstances; that there are ethically objectionable antecedents for why coercion is being considered should not necessarily or automatically cause us to think coercion in such cases cannot be justified. I address an objection to this argument and draw several conclusions about how governments’ use of coercion in public health should be evaluated.