Public Health Ethics
‘Freedom ends where public health begins’.
Word Count: 3,513 Words
Introduction
Over the years, there has been a conflict between public health and people’s freedom worldwide. The primary concern is based on pandemic development that has affected the world in different measures. People from other places have been restricted, physical business activities have been limited, and social gathering has also been minimised to prevent disease spread. The COVID-19 has increased the tension between freedom and public health, making it unbearable to socially interact due to the nature of the disease’s spread from one person to another. Public health is deemed to be part of a government branch that mainly shares the agenda on different healthcare management perspectives within the community.
On the other hand, people’s freedom is the liberty to human right that mainly enables people to do things at will without constraint. Therefore, the management of people’s public health and freedom is critical in saving people’s lives in such cases as COVID-19. Substantially, this is because it involves putting people’s health and wellbeing a priority than individuals’ interests (Allington et al., 2020). For instance, it is justifiable to enhance public health interventions that might quarantine people suffering from potential infectious diseases such as COVID-19. In such cases, individual freedom is sacrificed as much as possible to save many people’s lives. According to the World Health Organisation, the total number of infected individuals is more than 3.1 million globally, and the death cases more than 80,000 people (World Health Organization, 2021). The quarantine was also established to be effective to individuals coming from a country with potential risks of the high number of COVID cases.
The main focus on understanding freedom and public health interventions is to determine the potential dangers of balancing individual interests and the entire community’s concerns in the long run. As noted, this has been the case over the past year, where people’s freedom ended when public health began to minimise the disease’s spread. Therefore, it will be essential to critically evaluate people’s freedom and public health intervention to manage people’s safety and wellbeing in the community.
The Relationship Between Public Health and Freedom
The conflict that has been experienced between the public health and freedom of people in the society is not a recent event but an old conflict that can be traced as early as many decades ago. The primary contention of conflict often exists due to the enforcement of public health interventions and measures critical in minimising the possible spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19 (Egilman et al., 2019). Some believe that the enforcement of public health measures is a possible element leading to inevitable infringements of individual liberties and rights in the long run.
The management of such conflict among public health and freedom has been enhanced by fostering measures that do not excessively affect both entities (Gomez et al., 2018). For instance, it is a requirement that people need to be expected to voluntarily submit to liberty depriving initiatives only during the crisis and have trust in public health authorities’ competence. The established recommendations to manage public health during such a pandemic should highlight the effective concerns for individuals in society to balance the current threat level response (Paplicki et al., 2018).
During the outbreak of various diseases in the past, such as SARS, most of the public was willing to act responsibly through self-quarantine and adhering to measures put in place by the public health authority to minimise the spread of the disease. Similarly, the current pandemic, COVID-19, has been replicated as much as possible through international health directives that have been provided to minimise the spread. International travels were first banned across the globe, and social distance measures were put in place; curfew measures in extreme spread cases were also initiated to limit people’s movement from different locations (Mayer et al., 2020). Such measures seemed to restrict people’s freedom initially, but understanding their importance in minimising the spread of COVID-19 and improving people’s safety and wellbeing enabled them to adhere to such directives (Allington et al., 2020). Besides, individuals’ freedom is also explicitly limited to those posing a real and demonstrable risk to other people in public (Paplicki et al., 2018).
The infringement of individuals’ freedom and rights is also imposed on those who refuse to comply with voluntary measures like self and home isolation. Nonetheless, this brings the notion that such people’s freedom ends when public health measures begin to occur (Allington et al., 2020). In general, the understanding of freedom and public health is critical in managing pandemics globally. The freedom established should uphold the individual rights to be a priority and needs only to be trumped by the public’s established right in question to be protected in the long run. Moreover, each case on either to enforce the freedom and act on public health intervention needs to be focusing on rationales that determine the need to comply with voluntary measures and compulsory measures to be enforced to enhance people’s safety in the country. Notably, various measures can be initiated to improve freedom during this pandemic, such as the application of vaccination (Giubilini & Savulescu, 2019). Vaccination is critical in acting as part of the body’s immune system to protect an individual against the pathogens that may cause infection.
Furthermore, it either keeps the existing microorganism out or even tracks them down to get rid of them within a person’s body. The vaccination enables the body to recognise possible new disease by stimulating the body to make antibodies against a given pathogen (Giubilini & Savulescu, 2019). In turn, the body can have a faster response to the disease in the future in case of an infection. In general, the role of the vaccine of infectious disease is critical to minimise people’s freedom through public health measures.
Ethical Principles in Public Health
Understanding general ethical principles in public health care are significant in decision-making during care provision. In emergencies such as the COVID pandemics, public health professionals are often called upon to make both the implicit and explicit choices regarding establishing effective objectives and practical context to manage the situations (Marseille & Kahn, 2019). Further, the need to balance and make conclusions regarding individuals, communities, and populations’ rights and duties focuses on protecting and maintaining health in various ways. Therefore, effective training of public health professionals is critical in determining adequate preparations in an ethical sense to improve people’s wellbeing (Marseille & Kahn, 2019).
The ethical concerns in public health are to minimise risks and provide benefits that relate to health professionals’ obligations to acquire and apply relevant scientific knowledge. Substantially, the aim is to maintain and restore public health while respecting individual freedoms and rights (Klingler et al., 2017). The potential societal benefits need to balance with the established risks and harms to people in the community. The other concern of ethical principles in public health is to avoid possible conflict of interest.
Extensively, this aims to maintain public trust and sustain public health issues’ potential support accordingly (Salerno et al., 2019). Nonetheless, there are various ethical principles of public health that need to be understood to manage society.
The Ethical Principle of Utilitarianism in Public Health
The ethical principle of utilitarianism is considered a moral theory that primarily advocates for the actions fostering the need to enhance happiness and opposes actions that may impact happiness or harm. The principle of utilitarianism aims to improve society through essential directions focusing on social, economic, and political decisions in a country (Thomas et al., 2021). The main focus of utilitarianism’s principle is that it defines the excellent utility and the existing right that maximise utility in the long run.
Besides, utilitarianism is determined by the position based on outcomes and asserts the need for decisions to be judged by the expressed consequences (Thomas et al., 2021). Considerably, this is based on having the total sum of individual wellbeing in society. Therefore, public health policies should aim to produce the greatest happiness for many people in the country (Marseille & Kahn, 2019). For instance, when the government is putting measures on quarantine, it should satisfy many people to increase their wellbeing. However, utilitarianism in the country as an ethical principle in public health faces numerous challenges that need to be addressed.
It is considered intuitive in public health programs because it may be challenging to measure people’s wellbeing to define personal experiences (Udofia & Alexander, 2017). The ethical principle of utilitarianism is grounded by the concern that it can easily lead to unfairness in some cases since it mainly sacrifices people’s rights and freedom to warrant public utility.
The role of utilitarianism is critical to be adopted in public health due to various reason that needs to be considered. Some of the utilitarian characteristics are related to the consistent development of public health practice (Giubilini et al., 2018). These consist of aiming to maximise the presence of a good or wellbeing and health of the population. Public health actions are evaluated based on gains and losses they create for the people through various tools such as quality-adjusted life-years (Rydenfelt, 2020).
As a result, the development of efficiency and effectiveness is deemed essential to evaluate actions, programs, and necessary interventions objectively as much as possible for public health. The other role of the ethical principle of utilitarianism in public health is to pay attention to specific consequences that may take place (Rydenfelt, 2020). It is noted that the emphasis is placed on society’s health but sometimes seems to have repercussions that require effective interventions to minimise the impact. As such, public health needs to achieve interventions that mainly have adverse effects on some individuals but focuses on the collective health population.
Deontological Ethics in Public Health
The deontology theory suggests that actions are either good or bad based on the precise set of applied rules. This ethical principle’s primary focus is based on the need to enhance the moral obligation of acting following some set of principles and rules regardless of the possible outcomes expected (Callison & Sicilian, 2018). Like the utilitarian principle of ethics, some differences can be noted from deontological theories. The most notable difference is that the utilitarian principle of ethics mainly aims to achieve the greatest happiness and is justified by achieving the goal (Alsrayheen & Aldiabat, 2018). On the other hand, the deontological theory posits that some acts that are always wrong even if they lead to an admirable outcome in the long term.
The role of deontological theory in public health is to enhance the morality of an action that depends on its nature. For instance, the harm is unacceptable despite the level of consequences experienced. The deontological theory is appropriate in producing the essential outcome for society by maintaining public health initiatives accordingly (Callison & Sicilian, 2018). The interaction of public health professionals and the people in society are deontological because it focuses on improving people’s health and wellbeing. Further, when the tradition expressed to enhance people’s wellbeing through enhancing health care interventions is breached, there is a rise in medical negligence (Cannovo et al., 2020). Such tradition in this ethical principle is critical in driving public health professionals to do good for the people in the society by strengthening their relationship on the common understanding of health care management processes.
In general, these principle ethical based approaches are essential in defining the moral reasoning developed to address public health issues within the population. The draft under the above theory focuses on four principles such as justice, respect for autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. Substantially, they assist in justifying the relevant guidelines for public health professionals to establish the development of an ethical decision-making framework (Mayer et al., 2020). Principles such as justice are essential in figuring prominent issues that evolve to meet the demand and satisfy society’s population. Besides, the ethical principles are also vital in describing health professions’ analysis to ensure an application process of specification and reforms made in progressive specification towards new issues and concerns that may arise (Green, 2017).
Vaccination and Public Health
It is challenging to appreciate the benefit of vaccination in the contemporary world and revolutionise modern medicine. The long aspects related to the schedule seem to be a hassle and challenging to develop the final product that is productive for affected people with different diseases. Infectious diseases have always impacted humanity’s development, and there is evidence on the recognition of the fact from more than 100 years ago. For instance, smallpox and measles are considered to be among the common and terrible conditions that exist until the current time in the world (Saad-Roy et al., 2020). These diseases are contagious and quickly spread in different parts of the world without proper care from health care settings and public health professionals. During the 19th century, vaccine development made a significant step in health care settings.
Further, in the 20th century, the progress on vaccines’ development was substantial, with polio and yellow fever management being managed accordingly (Holmberg et al., 2017). Within the 21st century, there has been an advanced medical practice that has improved vaccine development for different diseases worldwide. Technological developments and further research have made it effective to develop different vaccines for many diseases in the world (Holmberg et al., 2017). Notably, the future of vaccine development continues to improve with the scientific community’s distribution working on measures to enhance the new diseases that experience.
The correlation between vaccines and public health is also essential to understand healthcare settings and the community. It is eminent that vaccines are deemed the cornerstone of public health and are among the most cost-efficient means of preventing several infectious diseases that range from acute to possible chronic diseases (Curran et al., 2017). Further, as part of the multifaceted approach to understanding infections, public health is critical in promoting the awareness and application of various vaccines that are useful to improve people’s health and wellbeing. This mission’s achievement by the related public health professionals is enhanced by establishing vaccine campaigns through conferences and seminars that attract many stakeholders. There are various health and economic impact of vaccines on public health that can be considered. The use of vaccines is crucial for saving lives and preventing diseases and disabilities.
Moreover, they are also essential in providing effective values among the involved health interventions (Majed et al., 2020). Additionally, vaccines have also greatly minimised infectious diseases’ burden to the country’s people. The safety of vaccines is getting more public attention, thereby making it useful to continue gaining necessary support from the involved stakeholders. The World Health Organisation has also supported public health initiatives to incorporate essential measures to improve people’s health (Majed et al., 2020). The public health professionals have also continued to evaluate the national vaccine program and policies to ensure the performance is intended for the right reasons and not to exploit the affected population in any way.
There are various challenges experienced in public health by developing vaccines essential in managing people’s wellbeing. There are concerns about the safety issues associated with vaccines that have impacted their application in different ways. Some of the risks involved consist of additional complications for the users leading to increased deformation and harm in the long term (Buonomo et al., 2018). In most cases, the infectious agents need a sufficient number for a susceptible host to maintain a given population’s presence. However, when such numbers are not met, it can lead to forgoing the vaccination. Substantially this can impact the affected individuals despite their limited numbers.
The other challenge experienced in developing vaccines is different stakeholders’ legal actions to prevent developing many vaccines. The issue may have both positive and negative impacts that need to be addressed (Saxena et al., 2020). The positive effect in the legal action taken can be essential in preventing any possible cause of harm to the targeted population, while the negative impact is that it can derail the development of the vaccine. As a result, many people may be affected by possible infectious diseases developed.
Vaccine and Health Care Setting
The development of vaccine recommendations is essential for every person within the committee. However, the involvement of health care settings is critical to be considered. Health care personnel are essential stakeholders who need to develop vaccines for different diseases. Like any other people in the development of the vaccine, health care personnel are always at the first risk of exposure to infection. Substantially this is because they continue to fight against deadly pandemics such as COVID-19 (Maltezou et al., 2019). Therefore, understanding the health care personnel’s race, ethnicity, and underlining health conditions provides a necessary setting that is critical in managing such conditions in the long term.
There is differing importance of involving health care settings in the development of vaccines for multiple diseases that affect people’s health and wellness in various ways. The recommendation by CDC provides the need for health care personnel to be protected and have the capacity to manage the distribution of vaccines to different places affected in the world. When health personnel get sick of any diseases that require vaccination, then the provision of services may be affected as much as possible (Wang et al., 2017). Another importance of involving health care in the development of vaccines is to provide necessary input on potential factors that may be put in place. For instance, based on the development of the ongoing COVID-19 infections vaccine development, the healthcare personnel are vital in providing necessary care after the vaccination process.
These services are offered in different localities such as at work, at home, and in the community that is considered a national priority for health care services (Wang et al., 2017). Additionally, early vaccine access is useful to ensure proper health and safety for the diverse workforce involved worldwide. The main focus is to protect the patients, communities, families, and involved health care stakeholders.
Role of The State in Vaccination
Vaccination is critical in protecting people’s health and wellbeing in a country affected by different serious diseases. Besides, vaccines play a critical role to end possible preventable deaths that may take place in a country. Therefore, a country has various responsibilities to ensure implementing the vaccine’s use to its people in several measures. One of the country’s roles in developing and providing vaccines is to ensure that the vaccines provided have the right quality (Schmit & Penn, 2017). The main aim of ensuring the right quality is to avoid any complication that may lead to any possibility of harm or even the death of many people who might use the vaccine to improve their wellbeing.
Moreover, the suggestion made to ensure quality requires the reflection on procedures to be followed in developing a vaccine to avoid various common problems that cause low quality in the long run (Bach & Goad, 2015). The country’s other role in the development of vaccination is to enable the targeted population’s distribution process.
The distribution process requires acknowledging receipts of the vaccines from the manufacturers to the country, proper storage mechanisms that may not affect the vaccine. Similarly, handling the administrative services such as enhancing proper coordination of relevant stakeholders to ensure the vaccination process’s success is also the country’s role to enable affected individuals to get vaccines in time (Bach & Goad, 2015). Through its health care agencies, the country also has the responsibility to create a campaign on the awareness of vaccines’ application, the location to receive the vaccines for the affected individuals in the country. Lastly, a country is mandated to hire and train the support staff to help distribute and vaccinate the country’s affected individuals.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the understanding of freedom and public health is essential since it provides necessary interventions to ensure the potential dangers of balancing individual interests and the entire community’s concerns in the long run. As noted, this has been the case over the past year, where people’s freedom ended when public health began to minimise the disease’s spread.
The relationship between public health and freedom describes the conflict experienced within society to ensure public health safety and wellness. Moreover, it also provides the primary contention of conflict due to the enforcement of public health interventions and measures critical in minimising the possible spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Some believe that the enforcement of public health measures is a possible element leading to inevitable infringements of individual liberties and rights in the long run. There are various ethical principles in public health that need to be considered regarding vaccines’ development in health care. The ethical principle of utilitarianism in public health is one measure that needs to be understood to address the above.
The role of utilitarianism is critical to be adopted in public health due to various reason that needs to be considered. Some of the functional characteristics are related to the consistent development of public health practice. The other principle is deontological ethics in public health, which suggests the need to enhance actions that are determined to be either good or bad based on the set rules that guide public health management.
References
Allington, D., Duffy, B., Wessely, S., Dhavan, N., & Rubin, J. (2020). Health-protective behaviour, social media usage, and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychological Medicine, 1-7.
Alsrayheen, E. A., & Aldiabat, K. (2018). Nicotine vaccines for smoking prevention and treatment from utilitarian and deontological ethical perspectives. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 14(2), 5.
Alsrayheen, E. A., & Aldiabat, K. M. (2018). Applied health services research as a framework for patient-oriented research: A suggested framework for health care researchers. International Journal of Nursing Student Scholarship, 5.
Bispo Júnior, J. P., & Morais, M. B. (2020). Community participation in the fight against COVID-19: Between utilitarianism and social justice. Cadernos de Saude Publica, 36, e00151620.
Blum, M., Chang, H. Y., Chuguransky, S., Grego, T., Kandasaamy, S., Mitchell, A., … & Finn, R. D. (2021). The InterPro protein families and domains database: 20 years on. Nucleic Acids Research, 49(D1), D344-D354.
Buonomo, B., Carbone, G., & d’Onofrio, A. (2018). Effect of seasonality on the dynamics of an imitation-based vaccination model with public health intervention. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 15(1), 299.
Callison, K., & Sicilian, P. (2018). Economic freedom and the affordable care act: Medicaid expansions and labor mobility by race and ethnicity. Public Finance Review, 46(2), 301-324.
Cannovo, N., Guarino, R., & Fedeli, P. (2020). Ethical and deontological aspects of pediatric biobanks: The situation in Italy. Cell and Tissue Banking, 1-9.
Casella, C., Graziano, V., Di Lorenzo, P., Capasso, E., & Niola, M. (2018). Unreasonable obstinacy: Ethical, deontological, and forensic medical problems. Journal of Public Health Research, 7(3).
Conti, A. (2018). Ethics in public health. Journal of Public Health Research, 7(3).
Curran, D., Van Oorschot, D., Varghese, L., Oostvogels, L., Mrkvan, T., Colindres, R., … & Anastassopoulou, A. (2017). Assessment of the potential public health impact of Herpes Zoster vaccination in Germany. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 13(10), 2213-2221.
Egilman, A. C., Wallach, J. D., Morten, C. J., Lurie, P., & Ross, J. S. (2019). A systematic overview of the Freedom of Information Act requests the Department of Health and Human Services from 2008 to 2017. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 26.
Giubilini, A., & Savulescu, J. (2019). Vaccination, risks, and freedom: The seat belt analogy. Public Health Ethics, 12(3), 237-249.
Giubilini, A., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2018). The moral obligation to be vaccinated: Utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 21(4), 547-560.
Giubilini, A., Douglas, T., Maslen, H., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Quarantine, isolation and the duty of easy rescue in public health. Developing World Bioethics, 18(2), 182-189.
Gomez, A. M., Mann, E. S., & Torres, V. (2018). ‘It would have control over me instead of me having control’: Intrauterine devices and the meaning of reproductive freedom. Critical Public Health, 28(2), 190-200.
Green, T. H. (2017). Liberal legislation and freedom of contract. In Liberty Reader (pp. 21-32). Routledge.
Holmberg, C., Blume, S., & Greenough, P. (2017). The politics of vaccination: A global history. Manchester University Press.
Klingler, C., Silva, D. S., Schuermann, C., Reis, A. A., Saxena, A., & Strech, D. (2017). Ethical issues in public health surveillance: A systematic qualitative review. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 295.
Kong, H. E., Grant-Kels, J. M., & Stoff, B. K. (2020). Applying the ethical principles of resource allocation to drugs in limited supply during a public health crisis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 83(1), 170-171.
Majed, L., Bresse, X., El Mouaddin, N., Schmidt, A., Daniels, V. J., Pavelyev, A., … & Elbasha, E. (2020). Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of a nine-valent gender-neutral HPV vaccination program in France. Vaccine, 39(2), 438-446.
Maltezou, H. C., Theodoridou, K., Ledda, C., Rapisarda, V., & Theodoridou, M. (2019). Vaccination of healthcare workers: Is mandatory vaccination needed? Expert Review of Vaccines, 18(1), 5-13.
Marseille, E., & Kahn, J. G. (2019). Utilitarianism and the ethical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in resource allocation for global health. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 14(1), 5.
Mayer, J. D., Schintler, L. A., & Bledsoe, S. (2020). Culture, freedom, and the spread of Covid‐19: Do some societies and political systems have national antibodies? World Medical & Health Policy.
Paplicki, M., Susło, R., Najjar, N., Najjar, N., Ciesielski, P., Augustyn, J., & Drobnik, J. (2018). Conflict of individual freedom and community health safety: Legal conditions on mandatory vaccinations and changes in the judicial approach in avoidance. Family Medicine & Primary Care Review, (4), 389-395.
Rydenfelt, H. (2020). From justice to the good? Liberal utilitarianism, climate change, and the coronavirus crisis. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 1-8.
Rydenfelt, H., & Nyfors, T. (2020). Recent problems of the public. In Pragmatism and Social Philosophy. Routledge.
Saad-Roy, C. M., Wagner, C. E., Baker, R. E., Morris, S. E., Farrar, J., Graham, A. L., … & Grenfell, B. T. (2020). Immune life history, vaccination, and the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 over the next five years. Science, 370(6518), 811-818.
Salerno, J., Peters, E. S., Pinney, S. M., Morain, S., & Hlaing, W. M. (2019). Untangling the ethical intersection of epidemiology, human subjects research, and public health. Annals of Epidemiology, 34, 1-5.
Saxena, S., Skirrow, H., & Bedford, H. (2020). Routine vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic response.
Silva, T. N. D., Freire, M. E. M., Vasconcelos, M. F. D., Silva Junior, S. V. D., Silva, W. J. D. C., Araújo, P. D. S., & Eloy, A. V. A. (2018). Deontological aspects of the nursing profession: Understanding the code of ethics. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 71(1), 3-10.
Skinner, D. M. C., & Bourne, C. F. (2020). Re: Freedom of information request.
Thomas, R., Parker, L. S., & Shiffman, S. (2021). The ethics of tobacco harm reduction: An analysis of e-cigarette availability from the perspectives of utilitarianism, bioethics, and public health ethics. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 23(1), 3-8.
Udofia, D., & Alexander, C. (2017). Leadership in the health sector: A discourse of the leadership model of utilitarianism. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 13(1), 6.
Wang, T. L., Jing, L., & Bocchini, J. A. (2017). Mandatory influenza vaccination for all healthcare personnel: A review on justification, implementation and effectiveness. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 29(5), 606-615.
Schmit, C. D., & Penn, M. S. (2017). Expanding state laws and a growing role for pharmacists in vaccination services. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 57(6), 661-669.
Bach, A. T., & Goad, J. A. (2015). The role of community pharmacy-based vaccination in the USA: current practice and future directions. Integrated pharmacy research & practice, 4, 67.
World Health Organization (2021). The United Kingdom COVID-19 situation. Retrieved from: https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/gb
Description
The attached doc is a copy of the previous submitted essay and on the last page you’ll find the feedback. Use critically analyse and just do your best, this is a re submission.
#Famous star told about vaccination her name I will tell you later I forgt parents decision , choice, individual , against and for vaccination, autonomy, harm principle (Mills), utilitarianism and liberalism, government about vaccination, principalism, beneficiancy
#Disney outbreak, wake field autism controversy
#What the french minister said is also important from guardian 2014
#Public Health Ethics and Practice edited by Stephen Peckham and Alison Hann (use more of the book)
