1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Bioethical Perspectives about Notion of Mandatory Vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 Translated title: Perspectivas Bioéticas frente a la Noción de Obligatoriedad de la Vacuna para SARS-CoV-2

      research-article
      Universitas Medica
      Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
      ética, ético, vacuna, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, ethics, ethical, vaccine, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract Introduction: In December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in Wuhan (China), which was mainly associated with severe symptoms of respiratory distress. The pandemic was declared in March 2020, which so far has claimed more than two million lives. At the beginning of 2021, vaccination began in the main cities of the world, a strategy that generated great controversies regarding the possibility of applying it as a mandatory application to the population. Objective: To address the most relevant ethical aspects of the notion of obligatory nature of the vaccine against COVID-19, and to provide elements for the bioethical analysis on this measure. Methodology: Wide literature search in the main databases and hermeneutical analysis. Results: Six documents related to ethical aspects regarding compulsory vaccination were found. Analysis of various bioethical perspectives for and against immunization. Conclusion: In favor of the optional notion of vaccination, there are important bioethical reasons to consider respect for the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, responsibility and agency. Faced with vaccination in a pandemic, information and education should be considered as one of the most important strategies for adherence to this public health measure.

          Translated abstract

          Resumen Introducción: En diciembre del 2019, el SARS-CoV-2 fue detectado en Wuhan (China), que se asoció principalmente a cuadros severos de dificultad respiratoria. La pandemia fue declarada en marzo del 2020, y hasta el momento ha cobrado más dos millones de vidas. Al inicio del 2021 se inició la vacunación en las principales ciudades del mundo, estrategia que generó grandes controversias frente a la posibilidad de aplicarla de manera obligatoria en la población. Objetivo: Abordar los aspectos éticos más relevantes de la noción de obligatoriedad de la vacuna contra la COVID-19 y aportar elementos para el análisis bioético sobre esta medida. Metodología: Búsqueda amplia de la literatura en las principales bases de datos y análisis hermenéutico. Resultados: Se encontraron seis documentos relacionados con aspectos éticos frente a la vacunación obligatoria. Análisis de diversas perspectivas bioéticas en favor y en contra de la inmunización. Conclusión: En favor de la noción optativa de la vacunación existen importantes razones bioéticas para considerar el respeto a los principios de autonomía, no maleficencia, de responsabilidad y agencia. Frente a la vacunación en pandemia, debe considerarse la información y la educación como una de las estrategias más importantes para la adherencia a esta medida de salud pública.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Offline: COVID-19 is not a pandemic

          As the world approaches 1 million deaths from COVID-19, we must confront the fact that we are taking a far too narrow approach to managing this outbreak of a new coronavirus. We have viewed the cause of this crisis as an infectious disease. All of our interventions have focused on cutting lines of viral transmission, thereby controlling the spread of the pathogen. The “science” that has guided governments has been driven mostly by epidemic modellers and infectious disease specialists, who understandably frame the present health emergency in centuries-old terms of plague. But what we have learned so far tells us that the story of COVID-19 is not so simple. Two categories of disease are interacting within specific populations—infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and an array of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). These conditions are clustering within social groups according to patterns of inequality deeply embedded in our societies. The aggregation of these diseases on a background of social and economic disparity exacerbates the adverse effects of each separate disease. COVID-19 is not a pandemic. It is a syndemic. The syndemic nature of the threat we face means that a more nuanced approach is needed if we are to protect the health of our communities. © 2020 Peter Scholey Partnership/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. The notion of a syndemic was first conceived by Merrill Singer, an American medical anthropologist, in the 1990s. Writing in The Lancet in 2017, together with Emily Mendenhall and colleagues, Singer argued that a syndemic approach reveals biological and social interactions that are important for prognosis, treatment, and health policy. Limiting the harm caused by SARS-CoV-2 will demand far greater attention to NCDs and socioeconomic inequality than has hitherto been admitted. A syndemic is not merely a comorbidity. Syndemics are characterised by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person's susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, attacking NCDs will be a prerequisite for successful containment. As our recently published NCD Countdown 2030 showed, although premature mortality from NCDs is falling, the pace of change is too slow. The total number of people living with chronic diseases is growing. Addressing COVID-19 means addressing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer. Paying greater attention to NCDs is not an agenda only for richer nations. NCDs are a neglected cause of ill-health in poorer countries too. In their Lancet Commission, published last week, Gene Bukhman and Ana Mocumbi described an entity they called NCDI Poverty, adding injuries to a range of NCDs—conditions such as snake bites, epilepsy, renal disease, and sickle cell disease. For the poorest billion people in the world today, NCDIs make up over a third of their burden of disease. The Commission described how the availability of affordable, cost-effective interventions over the next decade could avert almost 5 million deaths among the world's poorest people. And that is without considering the reduced risks of dying from COVID-19. © 2020 Allison Michael Orenstein/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. The most important consequence of seeing COVID-19 as a syndemic is to underline its social origins. The vulnerability of older citizens; Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities; and key workers who are commonly poorly paid with fewer welfare protections points to a truth so far barely acknowledged—namely, that no matter how effective a treatment or protective a vaccine, the pursuit of a purely biomedical solution to COVID-19 will fail. Unless governments devise policies and programmes to reverse profound disparities, our societies will never be truly COVID-19 secure. As Singer and colleagues wrote in 2017, “A syndemic approach provides a very different orientation to clinical medicine and public health by showing how an integrated approach to understanding and treating diseases can be far more successful than simply controlling epidemic disease or treating individual patients.” I would add one further advantage. Our societies need hope. The economic crisis that is advancing towards us will not be solved by a drug or a vaccine. Nothing less than national revival is needed. Approaching COVID-19 as a syndemic will invite a larger vision, one encompassing education, employment, housing, food, and environment. Viewing COVID-19 only as a pandemic excludes such a broader but necessary prospectus. © 2020 xavierarnau/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A Review of the Progress and Challenges of Developing a Vaccine for COVID-19

            A novel coronavirus, which has been designated as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first detected in December 2019 in Wuhan China and causes the highly infectious disease referred to as COVID-19. COVID-19 has now spread worldwide to become a global pandemic affecting over 24 million people as of August 26th, 2020 and claimed the life of more than 800,000 people worldwide. COVID-19 is asymptomatic for some individuals and for others it can cause symptoms ranging from flu-like to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), pneumonia and death. Although it is anticipated that an effective vaccine will be available to protect against COVID-19, at present the world is relying on social distancing and hygiene measures and repurposed drugs. There is a worldwide effort to develop an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 and, as of late August 2020, there are 30 vaccines in clinical trials with over 200 in various stages of development. This review will focus on the eight vaccine candidates that entered Phase 1 clinical trials in mid-May, including AstraZeneca/Oxford's AZD1222, Moderna's mRNA-1273 and Sinovac's CoronaVac vaccines, which are currently in advanced stages of vaccine development. In addition to reviewing the different stages of vaccine development, vaccine platforms and vaccine candidates, this review also discusses the biological and immunological basis required of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the importance of a collaborative international effort, the ethical implications of vaccine development, the efficacy needed for an immunogenic vaccine, vaccine coverage, the potential limitations and challenges of vaccine development. Although the demand for a vaccine far surpasses the production capacity, it will be beneficial to have a limited number of vaccines available for the more vulnerable population by the end of 2020 and for the rest of the global population by the end of 2021.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Mini-Review Discussing the Reliability and Efficiency of COVID-19 Vaccines

              Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 is a novel strain of human beta-coronavirus that has produced over two million deaths and affected one hundred million individuals worldwide. As all the proposed drugs proved to be unstable, inducing side effects, the need to develop a vaccine crystallized in a short time. As a result, we searched the databases for articles in which the authors reported the efficacy and safety of the use of several vaccines vaccines by sex, age group, and frequency of adverse reactions. We identified a total of 19 relevant articles that were discussed throughout this manuscript. We concluded that from all eleven vaccines, three had an efficacy >90% (Pfizer–BioNTech (~95%), Moderna (~94%), and Sputnik V (~92%)) except for Oxford–AstraZeneca (~81%). However, Moderna, Sputnik V, and Oxford–AstraZeneca also alleviate severe adverse reactions, whereas in Pfizer–BioNTech this was not revealed. The remaining five (Convidicea (AD5-nCOV); Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S); Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV); Covaxin (BBV152), and Sinovac (CoronaVac)) were discussed based on their immunogenicity, and safety reported by the recipients since only phases 1 and 2 were conducted without clear evidence published regarding their efficacy. CoviVac and EpiVacCorona have just been approved, which is why no published article could be found. All adverse events reported following the administration of one of the four vaccines ranged from mild to moderate; limited exceptions in which the patients either developed severe forms or died, because most effects were dose-dependent. It can be concluded that aforementioned vaccines are efficient and safe, regardless of age and sex, being well-tolerated by the recipients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                unmed
                Universitas Medica
                Univ. Med.
                Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Bogotá, Distrito Capital, Colombia )
                0041-9095
                2011-0839
                December 2021
                : 62
                : 4
                : 78-92
                Affiliations
                [1] Bogotá orgnamePontificia Universidad Javeriana orgdiv1School of Medicine orgdiv2Department of Pediatrics Colombia mapedrazag@ 123456unbosque.edu.co
                Article
                S2011-08392021000400009 S2011-0839(21)06200400009
                10.11144/javeriana.umed62-4.vacu
                5fc7b48f-9e58-4823-917b-c7e6e8b6ce38

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 23 March 2021
                : 13 July 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 46, Pages: 15
                Product

                SciELO Colombia

                Categories
                Originals

                vacuna,SARS-CoV-2,COVID-19,vaccine,ethical,ethics,ético,ética
                vacuna, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, vaccine, ethical, ethics, ético, ética

                Comments

                Comment on this article