Steven Bow

In 2017, Carson and Flood outlined a general duty to be vaccinated, arguing from Catholic social teaching on justice, love, solidarity and the common good. This necessarily relied on assumptions about the typical nature of vaccination, assumptions which do not always hold true in concrete situations. I identify twelve criteria that, where they hold, strengthen the particular duty to be vaccinated, and, if not met, weaken or reverse it. These pertain to the biological agent which vaccination aims to protect against, the vaccine and its supply, the costs and benefits of vaccination to the individual and society, and the alternative courses of action. The two-way relationship between the moral duty to be vaccinated and vaccine mandates is discussed. Individuals and policy-makers need to know these criteria – and be provided the necessary information to evaluate vaccination against them – in order to make a truly rational judgement.

Dear Editor, We are pleased to report that we have recently published an article in a well-established bioethics journal where we briefly review the evidence surrounding abortion pill reversal (APR) and argue that those who identify with the pro-choice standpoint should support APR provision (indeed, the ex-CEO of BPAS, Ann Furedi, has agreed in principle with this conclusion of ours in one of her tweets). We also hope that our article will serve as a record in the peer-reviewed and indexed literature of the struggles our fellow CMA UK members have gone through to support women who eventually decided to keep their pregnancies, and the tribulations they had to endure from their colleagues in the medical establishment. It is perhaps somewhat symbolic that our paper has been published in a special issue dedicated to the ‘feminist ethics of care’ as APR and the sacrifice of our colleagues shows what care for women should really look like.(1) We have made sure to spread the word about this as well. One of us has given an interview to Irish pro-life group Protect Life (still to be published) and we have submitted a post to a pro-life collaborative that also awaits publication. Finally, we have also published a post about this paper and current developments in the USA in a well-established bioethics news site, which has been republished in various online outlets.(2) We believe that this promotion of APR is vital, as recent statements from both the UK and the USA indicate that the pressure against APR might grow. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have published a post entitled ‘Facts Are Important: Medication Abortion "Reversal" Is Not Supported by Science’.(3) Similarly, the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, together with other bodies (including the British Society of Abortion Care Providers) have posted a position statement stating that there is no reputable evidence for using progesterone in APR.(4) One truly wonders why these organisations are pushing this narrative despite the weight of the evidence available being in favour of APR and their organisations’ professed support for women’s choice.