An Ethical Anaylsis of the Arguments Both For and Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers

Background: Since the development of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccine for the prevention of serious disease and death associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, health care workers have been expected to comply with mandatory immunization require-ments or face potential termination of employment and censure by their state medical boards. Although most ac-cepted this mandate, there have been several who have felt this was an unnecessary intrusion and violation of their right to choose their own health care mitigation strategies, or an infringement on their autonomy and other civil liberties. Others have argued that being a health care professional places your duties above your own self-interests, so-called fiduciary duties. As a result of these duties, there is an ex-pected obligation to do the best action to achieve the "most good" for society. A so-called "utilitarian argument." Dis-cussion: We explore arguments both for and against these mandatory vaccine requirements and conclude using duty -and consequence-based moral reasoning to weigh the merits of each. Conclusions: Although arguments for and against vaccine mandates are compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's per-sonal liberties. Published by Elsevier Inc.