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

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

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

Een jongen met tularemie na een modderrace

Background Tularaemia is a rare disease. In Europe it mostly occurs in Scandinavia. Since 2011 more cases are being reported in the Netherlands. Tularaemia may manifest itself in various ways. It is important to take strict precautions during biopsy, drainage and biopsy processing in order to prevent transmission. Case description A 10yearold boy presented to the paediatrician with a left inguinal lymphadenitis. A week before the onset of symptoms he had participated in a children's mud race. Serology and PCR of pus from the lymph node tested positive for Francisella tularensis. Treatment with ciprofloxacin was insufficiently effective, so surgical drainage of the gland was performed under strict isolation conditions. Water from the mud race location contained genetic material from F. tularensis. Conclusion Given the rising incidence of tularaemia in the Netherlands, it is important to consider 'tularaemia' in the differential diagnosis in patients with lymphadenitis and epidemiological clues in their case history. Since 1 November 2016 it has been mandatory to report tularaemia in the Netherlands.</p

Een jongen met tularemie na een modderrace

Background Tularaemia is a rare disease. In Europe it mostly occurs in Scandinavia. Since 2011 more cases are being reported in the Netherlands. Tularaemia may manifest itself in various ways. It is important to take strict precautions during biopsy, drainage and biopsy processing in order to prevent transmission. Case description A 10yearold boy presented to the paediatrician with a left inguinal lymphadenitis. A week before the onset of symptoms he had participated in a children's mud race. Serology and PCR of pus from the lymph node tested positive for Francisella tularensis. Treatment with ciprofloxacin was insufficiently effective, so surgical drainage of the gland was performed under strict isolation conditions. Water from the mud race location contained genetic material from F. tularensis. Conclusion Given the rising incidence of tularaemia in the Netherlands, it is important to consider 'tularaemia' in the differential diagnosis in patients with lymphadenitis and epidemiological clues in their case history. Since 1 November 2016 it has been mandatory to report tularaemia in the Netherlands

Temsirolimus does not impact the levels of reactive oxygen species and superoxide in HGPS cells.

<p>(A) Immunochemistry was performed on control (GMO3349C) and HGPS (HGADFN003) fibroblasts mock-treated or temsirolimus-treated for the indicated periods. Live cells were stained with an oxidative stress detection reagent for ROS and a superoxide detection reagent. The negative control was treated with N-acetyl-L-cysteine to quench the signal intensity. The positive control was treated with pycocyanin to induce ROS production. DNA was stained with Hoechst 33342. Representative images are shown (n = 4). Scale-bar: 20 μm. (B) The same cells and detection reagents as in (A) were used to perform a 96-well microplate assay as described in Methods. The percentage of activity was calculated relative to mock-treated control cells. Data are expressed as the mean ± S.D. (*p-value ≤ 0.05; n = 4).</p