Abstract
AbstractThe seat belt analogy argument is aimed at furthering the success of coercive vaccination efforts on the basis that the latter is similar to compulsory use of seat belts. However, this article demonstrated that this argument does not work so well in practice due to several reasons. The possibility of saving resources in health care does not usually apply in our societies, and the paternalist mentality that contributed to the implementation of seat belt–wearing obligation was predominant 30 years ago, but it does not apply at this moment. Furthermore, the risk/benefit analysis is totally different in both scenarios. In the case of seat belts, there is no way to discriminate between the users. In the case of vaccines, individuals present with unique circumstances that may differ substantially from those of another and might be foreseen a priori. This means that an analysis must be performed individually before vaccination is imposed. Finally, one must keep in mind that seat belts are often the only way in which we can protect third parties against a tragic hit by the occupant of another vehicle and are very efficient tools for this purpose. Vaccines, in contrast, do not always create sterilising immunity and are definitely not the only way by which we can avoid spreading a virus; immunity certificates, isolation, or even confinement may also serve as viable methods to achieve this purpose.
Funder
H2020 Science with and for Society
Eusko Jaurlaritza
Universidad del País Vasco
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Education,Health (social science)
Reference25 articles.
1. Al-Ozaibi, L., J. Adnan, B. Hassan, A. Al-Mazroui, and F. Al-Badri. 2016. Seat belt syndrome: Delayed or missed intestinal injuries, a case report and review of literature. International Journal of Surgery Case Reports 20: 74–76.
2. Brown, R.C., J. Savulescu, B. Williams, and D. Wilkinson. 2020. Passport to freedom? Immunity passports for COVID-19. Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (10): 652–659.
3. Brusa, M., and Y.M. Barilan. 2021. Voluntary COVID-19 vaccination of children: A social responsibility. Journal of Medical Ethics 47: 543–546.
4. CDC. 2021. Interim clinical considerations for use of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html#considerations-covid19-vax-booster. Accessed 02 Feb 2022
5. De Miguel Beriain, I. 2021. We should not vaccinate the young to protect the old: A response to Giubilini, Savulescu, and Wilkinson. Journal of Law Biosciences 8 (1): 015. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab015. Accessed 02 Feb 2022
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献