Department of Health Services Management, School of Health, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Cardiovascular Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Mar 14;23(1):255. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09237-6.
Various vaccines have been developed and distributed worldwide to control and cope with COVID-19 disease. To ensure vaccines benefit the global community, the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence, and autonomy should be examined and adhered to in the process of development, distribution, and implementation. This study, therefore, aimed to examine ethical considerations of vaccine development and vaccination processes.
A scoping review of the literature was conducted based on the Arkesy and O'Malley protocol to identify eligible studies published until November 2021. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and SciELO databases. The search was conducted using combinations of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms and keywords for Ethics, COVID-19, and vaccines in abstract, keywords, and title fields to retrieve potentially relevant publications. We included any study that reported one of the four principles of medical ethics: autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence in the COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution and implementation of vaccinations. Letters, notes, protocols, and brief communications were excluded. In addition, we searched gray literature to include relevant studies (ProQuest database, conferences, and reports). Data were analyzed using framework analysis.
In total, 43 studies were included. Ethical considerations concluded two themes: (1) production and (2) distribution and vaccination. The production process consisted of 16 codes and 4 main Categories, distribution and vaccination process consisted of 12 codes and 4 main Categories. Moreover, the ethical considerations of special groups were divided into four main groups: health care workers (HCWs) (five codes), children and adolescents (five codes), the elderly (one code), and ethnic and racial minorities (three codes).
Due to the externalities of pandemics and the public and social benefits and harms of vaccination, it is not feasible to adhere to all four principles of medical ethics simultaneously and perfectly. This issue confronts individuals and policymakers with several moral dilemmas. It seems that decision-making based on the balance between social benefit and social harm is a better criterion in this regard, and the final decision should be made based on maximizing the public benefit and minimizing the public harm.
为了控制和应对 COVID-19 疾病,全球范围内已经开发和分发了各种疫苗。为了确保疫苗使全球受益,在开发、分发和实施疫苗的过程中,应该审查并遵守有利、公正、不伤害和自主这四项医学伦理原则。因此,本研究旨在审查疫苗开发和接种过程中的伦理考虑。
我们按照 Arkesy 和 O'Malley 方案进行了文献范围界定综述,以确定截至 2021 年 11 月发表的合格研究。我们检索了 Web of Science、PubMed、Scopus 和 SciELO 数据库。在检索中,我们在摘要、关键词和标题字段中使用了医学主题词(MeSH)搜索词和与伦理、COVID-19 和疫苗相关的关键词的组合,以检索潜在的相关文献。我们纳入了任何报告了医学伦理四项原则之一的研究,即自主、公正、不伤害和有利,这些原则涉及 COVID-19 疫苗的开发和分发以及疫苗接种的实施。信件、注释、方案和简要通讯被排除在外。此外,我们还检索了灰色文献,以纳入相关研究(ProQuest 数据库、会议和报告)。使用框架分析对数据进行了分析。
共纳入 43 项研究。伦理考虑得出了两个主题:(1)生产和(2)分配和接种。生产过程包括 16 个代码和 4 个主要类别,分配和接种过程包括 12 个代码和 4 个主要类别。此外,特殊群体的伦理考虑分为四个主要群体:卫生保健工作者(HCWs)(5 个代码)、儿童和青少年(5 个代码)、老年人(1 个代码)和族裔和种族少数群体(3 个代码)。
由于大流行病的外部性以及疫苗接种的公共和社会效益及危害,同时完全遵守医学伦理四项原则是不可行的。这一问题使个人和决策者面临着若干道德困境。在这方面,基于社会效益和危害之间的平衡进行决策似乎是一个更好的标准,最终决策应该基于最大限度地提高社会效益和最小化社会效益。