Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Center for Value-Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic Community Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 Jun;37(6):907-909. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1908245. Epub 2021 Apr 9.
With current COVID-19 vaccine demand outweighing supply and the emergency authorization/rollout of three novel vaccines in the United States, discussions continue regarding fair prioritization among various groups for this scarce resource. The US federal government's recommended vaccination schedule, meant to assist states with vaccine allocation, demonstrates fair ethical considerations; however, difficulties remain comparing various groups to determine fair vaccine access and distribution. Although strides have been taken to analyze risks versus benefits of early vaccination across certain high-risk populations, prioritizing vulnerable populations versus essential workers remains challenging for multiple reasons. Similarly, as COVID-19 vaccine allocation and distribution continues in the US and in other countries, topics that require continued consideration include sub-prioritization among currently prioritized groups, prioritization among vulnerable groups disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, like ethnic minorities, and holistic comparisons between groups who might receive various and disparate benefits from vaccination. Although all current COVID-19 vaccines are emergency authorization use only and a vaccine mandate would be considered only once these vaccines are licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration, future vaccination policies require time and deliberation. Similarly, given current vaccine hesitancy, mandatory vaccination of certain groups, like healthcare personnel, may need to be considered when these vaccines are licensed, especially if voluntary vaccination proves insufficient. Continued discussions regarding risks versus benefits of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and the unique role of healthcare personnel in providing a safe healthcare environment could lead to better deliberation regarding potential policies. This commentary aims to address both questions of fair prioritization and sub-prioritization of various groups, as well as ethical considerations for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare personnel.
随着当前 COVID-19 疫苗的需求超过供应,以及美国三种新型疫苗的紧急授权/推出,人们继续讨论如何在各种群体中公平地优先考虑这一稀缺资源。美国联邦政府推荐的疫苗接种计划旨在帮助各州分配疫苗,体现了公平的伦理考虑;然而,在比较不同群体以确定公平的疫苗接种机会和分配方面仍存在困难。尽管已经采取了措施来分析早期接种在某些高风险人群中的风险与收益,但出于多种原因,优先考虑弱势群体与基本工作人员仍然具有挑战性。同样,随着 COVID-19 疫苗在美国和其他国家的分配和分发继续进行,需要继续考虑的话题包括当前优先群体中的次优先化、受 COVID-19 大流行影响较大的弱势群体中的优先化,如少数民族,以及从接种疫苗中可能获得各种不同利益的群体之间的全面比较。尽管所有当前的 COVID-19 疫苗均仅为紧急授权使用,并且只有在美国食品和药物管理局批准这些疫苗后才会考虑疫苗授权,但未来的疫苗接种政策需要时间和审议。同样,鉴于当前的疫苗犹豫情绪,在这些疫苗获得许可时,可能需要考虑对某些群体(如医疗保健人员)进行强制性疫苗接种,特别是如果自愿接种证明不足。继续讨论强制性 COVID-19 疫苗接种的风险与收益以及医疗保健人员在提供安全医疗环境中的独特作用,可能会导致更好地审议潜在政策。本评论旨在解决各种群体的公平优先化和次优先化问题,以及医疗保健人员强制性 COVID-19 疫苗接种的伦理考虑。