Human Challenge Studies in Endemic Settings

This open access book provides an extensive review of ethical and regulatory issues related to human infection challenge studies, with a particular focus on the expansion of this type of research into endemic settings and/or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Human challenge studies (HCS) involve the intentional infection of research participants, and this type of research is rapidly increasing in frequency worldwide. HCS are widely considered to be an especially promising approach to vaccine development, including for pathogens endemic to LMICs. However, challenge studies are sometimes controversial and raise complex ethical issues, some of which are especially salient in endemic and/or LMIC settings. Informed by qualitative interviews with experts in infectious diseases and bioethics, this book highlights areas of ethical consensus and controversy concerning this kind of research. As the first volume to focus on ethical issues associated with human challenge studies, it sets the agenda for further work in this important area of global health research; contributes to current debates in research ethics; and aims to inform regulatory policy and research practice. Insofar as it focuses on HCS in (endemic) settings where diseases are present and/or widespread, much of the analysis provided here is directly relevant to HCS involving pandemic diseases including COVID19

Human Challenge Studies in Endemic Settings

This open access book provides an extensive review of ethical and regulatory issues related to human infection challenge studies, with a particular focus on the expansion of this type of research into endemic settings and/or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Human challenge studies (HCS) involve the intentional infection of research participants, and this type of research is rapidly increasing in frequency worldwide. HCS are widely considered to be an especially promising approach to vaccine development, including for pathogens endemic to LMICs. However, challenge studies are sometimes controversial and raise complex ethical issues, some of which are especially salient in endemic and/or LMIC settings. Informed by qualitative interviews with experts in infectious diseases and bioethics, this book highlights areas of ethical consensus and controversy concerning this kind of research. As the first volume to focus on ethical issues associated with human challenge studies, it sets the agenda for further work in this important area of global health research; contributes to current debates in research ethics; and aims to inform regulatory policy and research practice. Insofar as it focuses on HCS in (endemic) settings where diseases are present and/or widespread, much of the analysis provided here is directly relevant to HCS involving pandemic diseases including COVID19

Moralization and Mismoralization in Public Health

Moralization is a social-psychological process through which morally neutral issues take on moral significance. Often linked to health and disease, moralization may sometimes lead to good outcomes; yet moralization is often detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole. It is therefore important to be able to identify when moralization is inappropriate. In this paper, we offer a systematic normative approach to the evaluation of moralization. We introduce and develop the concept of ‘mismoralization’, which is when moralization is metaethically unjustified. In order to identify mismoralization, we argue that one must engage in metaethical analysis of moralization processes while paying close attention to the relevant facts. We briefly discuss one historical example (tuberculosis) and two contemporary cases related to COVID-19 (infection and vaccination status) that we contend to have been mismoralized in public health. We propose a remedy of de-moralization that begins by identifying mismoralization and that proceeds by neutralizing inapt moral content. De-moralization calls for epistemic and moral humility. It should lead us to pull away from our tendency to moralize—as individuals and as social groups—whenever and wherever moralization is unjustified

Against COVID‐19 vaccination of healthy children

COVID-19 vaccination of children has begun in a number of countries with provisional regulatory approval and public support. This article provides an ethical analysis of COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children. Specifically, we present three of the strongest arguments that might justify COVID-19 vaccination of children: (a) an argument from paternalism, (b) an argument from indirect protection and altruism, and (c) an argument from global eradication. We offer a series of objections to each of these arguments to show that none of them is currently tenable. Given the minimal direct benefit of COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children, the potential for rare risks to outweigh these benefits and to undermine vaccine confidence, the substantial evidence that COVID-19 vaccination confers adequate protection to risk groups whether or not healthy children are vaccinated and that current vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity, and given that eradication of the virus is neither feasible nor a high priority for global health, we argue that routine COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children is currently ethically unjustified. Since mandates for children have already been implemented in some places (e.g., California) and may be considered elsewhere, we also present two additional arguments explicitly against making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for children

An ethical analysis of vaccinating children against COVID-19: benefits, risks, and issues of global health equity [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

COVID-19 vaccination of children has begun in various high-income countries with regulatory approval and general public support, but largely without careful ethical consideration. This trend is expected to extend to other COVID-19 vaccines and lower ages as clinical trials progress. This paper provides an ethical analysis of COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children. Specifically, we argue that it is currently unclear whether routine COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children is ethically justified in most contexts, given the minimal direct benefit that COVID-19 vaccination provides to children, the potential for rare risks to outweigh these benefits and undermine vaccine confidence, and substantial evidence that COVID-19 vaccination confers adequate protection to risk groups, such as older adults, without the need to vaccinate healthy children. We conclude that child COVID-19 vaccination in wealthy communities before adults in poor communities worldwide is ethically unacceptable and consider how policy deliberations might evolve in light of future developments

A Scalar Approach to Vaccination Ethics

Should people get vaccinated for the sake of others? What could ground—and limit—the normative claim that people ought to do so? In this paper, we propose a reasons-based consequentialist account of vaccination for the benefit of others. We outline eight harm-based and probabilistic factors that, we argue, give people moral reasons to get vaccinated. Instead of understanding other-directed vaccination in terms of binary moral duties (i.e., where people either have or do not have a moral duty to get vaccinated), we develop a scalar approach according to which people can have stronger or weaker moral reasons to get vaccinated in view of the moral good of vaccination. One advantage of our approach is that it can capture why a person might have strong moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine A, but only weak moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine B. We discuss theoretical strengths of our approach and provide a case study of vaccination against COVID-19 to demonstrate its practical significance