COVID-19 vaccination and the right to take risks

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Bioethics
• Vaccinology

Background:

• Rare cases of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) have been linked to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
• This has led some governments to pause vaccination programs, raising scientific and ethical concerns.

Purpose of the Study:

• To present a rights-based ethical argument against suspending COVID-19 vaccine rollouts.
• To assert that vaccine suspensions infringe upon individual autonomy in health risk assessment.

Main Methods:

• Ethical analysis using a rights-based framework.
• Examination of consequentialist arguments favoring vaccine suspension.
• Consideration and refutation of potential objections to the rights-based argument.

Main Results:

• Suspension of vaccine programs, despite rare adverse events like CVT, violates individuals' right to accept health risks.
• A rights-based approach offers a stronger ethical justification for continuing vaccine rollouts than consequentialist arguments focused solely on aggregate harm/benefit.

Conclusions:

• Continuing COVID-19 vaccine programs upholds individual autonomy and the right to manage personal health risks.
• Ethical considerations should prioritize individual rights alongside public health benefits during vaccination campaigns.