Ethical Dilemma Regarding Forced Vaccination

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Talk of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic and the fear associated with the risk of death from the new disease is rapidly shifting to a new agenda, namely compulsory vaccination. It seems that people are already used to restrictive measures from the government and have accepted the need to use masks in public places, but the introduction of compulsory vaccination and the resulting bans proved to be another blow from the authorities. Thus, the third and already impending fourth waves of coronavirus infection may not seem as scary as being vaccinated. In this context, communities tend to fear everything from the unproven composition of vaccines and biased examination results to possible side effects that will affect health years from now. On the other hand, the authorities’ actions are apparent and even consistent since in order to achieve collective immunity and thus defeat COVID-19, restrictions of a more serious nature than the requirement to wear masks must be applied. All of this leads to a severe discourse around vaccination that raises ethical and civic concerns. The purpose of this essay is to discuss this issue that is relevant to all humanity.

Of primary importance is a discussion of the importance of vaccination as a phenomenon in general. Understandably, any infectious disease can be cured in many different ways, from the questionable to the scientifically proven. However, this statement is difficult to apply to COVID-19 because of the novelty of this threat: Due to its comparatively short duration, clinical laboratories worldwide have not yet been able to find a universal cure for the infection. At the same time, it should be understood that the vaccine is a reliable and time-tested tool. Humankind has been using vaccines for centuries to combat pathogens preventively. By introducing weakened copies of a virus or its fragments into the patient’s body, the human immunity creates its immune response, which will be activated if an actual virus is already inside. Thus, the vaccine is an excellent technology that allows humans to survive a complex pandemic. In addition, biotechnological science has made substantial advances over Edward Jenner’s discoveries, so modern vaccines, which include Pfizer and Moderna, turn out to be much safer. The risk of contracting an infection from injecting such RNA vaccines is reduced to zero, which means no harm is done to the human body (Anand & Stahel, 2021). While academia and governments clearly understand this, the public may have serious questions.

It is not surprising that the vaccine as a coercive measure has resonated with the public. On the one hand, communities understand the need for effective government action to end the pandemic as quickly as possible. The introduction of restrictive measures, drug development and research, social benefits, and payments to vulnerable groups have all been and continue to be seen as necessary sacrifices for the sake of ending COVID-19 as quickly as possible. In reality, people are tired of restrictions on all sides: a return to everyday life, to open restaurants and parks, to going to concerts without masks, and, most importantly, to traveling around the world seems to be the dream of tens of millions of people from all over the planet. People want to live in a world where they do not have to take a PCR test or get vaccinated to check into a hotel or visit another country. However, the objective reality shows an alternative picture.

Achieving all of the above desires is only possible by actively fighting the virus, which involves vaccination. However, it seems that everyone is not ready to inject an understudied component, synthesized in a hurry, including for commercial purposes by large laboratories. In this sense, a second side is created, which questions the balance between national security and the individual’s boundaries. No one has the right to force a citizen to perform medical services forcibly. The constitutions of most countries in the world protect the inviolability of the individual and guarantee medical non-interference. However, this context creates a counter-reply: if a person does not want to be vaccinated, he or she can be denied travel, work, leisure time, and access to public spaces. At the same time, it must be understood that the forced nature of vaccination, which Biden keeps talking about, is necessary to build collective immunity and, therefore, to win COVID-19 as quickly as possible (Mendez, 2021). A conflict is then created between the civil desires of the individual and the ethical side of such an intervention.

It is important to emphasize that state intervention is necessary: the very idea of such an organizational structure implies the delegation of civil power to a group of selected people. Communities thus expect active action from the authorities and are ready to scold them if no initiative is observed. At the same time, communities are unwilling to implement discriminatory practices when introducing “green passports” for vaccination will outline the gap between groups of people (Rodriguez, 2021). Thus, it can be postulated that the government must fulfill its duty and care about national security, but such concerns must not overstep personal boundaries. It is also true that every citizen is entitled to their constitutional rights, but their freedoms end where the freedoms of others begin. Since travel by unvaccinated individuals poses a danger to others, this and similar measures would, in any case, be discriminatory. Consequently, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, right or wrong sides, and correct answers to this ethical dilemma. It can only be expected that the COVID-19 pandemic to end as quickly as possible without further infringing on the interests of citizens.