Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Wrong Question and the Wrong Standard of Proof.Marc Lipsitch - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (6):378-379.
    I have two concerns about Pugh et al ’s case that vaccine requirements without a natural immunity exception are unjustified.1 First, the scientific question they suggest must be answered to justify the policy is in my view the wrong one, or at least not the only relevant one. Second, the authors set up a standard for public health regulation that will be often unattainable, risking paralysis of public health authorities. Pugh et al suggest two legitimate bases for vaccine mandates: ‘the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Vaccine Mandates Need a Clear Rationale to Identify Which Exemptions Are Appropriate.Bridget Williams - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (6):384-385.
    The rapid development and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines has been a surprising success of the pandemic and has likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Although most people were eager to receive a vaccine, many jurisdictions introduced mandates to ensure rapid uptake in the population, especially among key workers including healthcare workers. In some instances, individuals who can prove they have recovered from COVID-19 have been exempt from vaccine mandates, but in other cases such exemptions have not been made. Pugh (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • No Right Answer: Officials Need Discretion on Whether to Allow Natural Immunity Exemptions.Dorit Reiss - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (6):380-381.
    In their thoughtful, nuanced and interesting discussion, Jonathan Pugh, Julian Savulescu, Rebecca Brown and Dom Wilkinson argued that officials should recognise proof of prior infection as a valid exemption from vaccination requirements.1 This commentary agrees with parts of their analysis, but argues that the case for the exemption is less clear than the authors suggest, and the better approach is to allow officials flexibility: an exemption for natural immunity may be appropriate or may not. In part, the disagreements may stem (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Who Commits the Unnaturalistic Fallacy?Kyle Ferguson - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (6):382-383.
    According to G E Moore,1 we commit the naturalistic fallacy when we infer ‘x is good’ from non-evaluative premises involving x such as ‘ x is pleasant’ or ‘ x is desired’. On Moore’s view, the mistake is to think that we can reduce moral goodness to anything else or explain it in any other terms. We cannot analyse ‘good’, Moore thought, because goodness is simple, non-natural and sui generis. If Moore were alive today, and if he were to ask (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation