How Well Do Religious Exemptions Apply to Mandates for COVID-19 Vaccines?

Author:

Flescher Andrew12

Affiliation:

1. Department of Family, Population, and Preventive Medicine, Core Faculty in Public Health, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8338, USA

2. Department of English, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8338, USA

Abstract

In the United States, religious exemptions to health-driven mandates enjoy, and should enjoy, protected status in medical ethics and healthcare law. Religious exemptions are defined as seriously professed exceptions to state or federal laws, which appeal to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allowing workers to request an exception to a job requirement, including a health-protective mandate, if it “conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances”. In medical ethics, such religious exceptions are usually justified on the basis of the principle of autonomy, where personally held convictions, reflected in scripture or established religious norms, are safeguarded on the basis of the first amendment, thereby constituting an important area in which societal good must yield to individual liberty. Acknowledging the longstanding category of “religious exemptions”, and referencing some examples that adhere to its parameters in good faith (e.g., objections made by some institutions to HPV vaccines), I argue that, to date, no coherent basis for religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccines has been offered through appeal to the principle of autonomy, or, in a healthcare context, to “medical freedom”. Indeed, proponents of characterizing these exemptions as legitimate misconstrue autonomy and abuse the reputation of the religious traditions they invoke in defense of their endeavors to opt out. The upshot is not only an error in interpreting the principle of autonomy, whereby it is issued a “blank check”, but also a dishonesty in itself whereby a contested political position becomes deliberately disguised as a protected religious value. “Sincerely held beliefs”, I conclude, appear no longer to constitute the standard for religious accommodation in the era of COVID-19. Individual declaration, seemingly free of any reasonable constraint, does. This is a shift that has serious consequences for public health and, more broadly, the public good.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Religious studies

Reference45 articles.

1. Adams, Ben, and Barmore, Cynthia (2022, December 21). “The Role of the Courts After Hobby Lobby”, 67 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 59. Available online: http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/11/67_Stan_L_Rev_Online_59_AdamsBarmore.pdf.

2. The Effects of Religious Beliefs on the Health Care Practices of the Amish;Adams;The Nurse Practitioner,1986

3. Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2022, December 21). 662 F.2d 1025. Available online: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/662/662.F2d.1025.81-2325.html.

4. COVID-19 in rural America: Impacts of politics and disadvantage;Albrecht;Rural Sociology,2021

5. Vaccination, politics and COVID-19 impacts;Albrecht;BMC Public Health,2022

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3