No Ethical Justification for Vaccine Passports

Ethics and Vaccination Passports

The ethical question in the article by Voigt (2022) is whether vaccine passports promote or threaten equality.

The relevant facts that are known in the case include the development of COVID-19 vaccines, the fact that discussions have taken place at governmental levels about the implementation of vaccine passport programs in some countries, and concerns about potential discrimination against marginalized communities who may have limited access to vaccines or face barriers to obtaining vaccination passports have also been raised (Voigt, 2022).

Questions that remain unknown and that need to be known are include the effectiveness of vaccination passports in controlling the spread of COVID-19, the potential for fraud or exploitation of vaccination passports, and the extent to which vaccination passport programs will be implemented globally.

Stakeholders and key actors in the issue are governments, public health organizations, businesses, individuals, and marginalized communities who may be affected by the implementation of vaccination passport programs.

The obligation owed to key actor desired outcome is to ensure that the implementation of vaccination passport programs does not result in discrimination or exacerbate existing inequalities. The desired outcome for key actors is to balance the need for public health measures with protecting individual rights and promoting equity.

Possible solutions include implementing vaccination passport programs with robust anti-discrimination measures, providing equitable access to vaccines, and exploring alternative public health measures that do not rely on vaccination passports (Voigt, 2022).

Arguments for vaccine passports are that they promote equality by reducing the burden on the disadvantaged and by creating safer spaces for those most at risk from COVID-19, as vaccine passports would require those who are at-risk to self-isolate (Voigt, 2022).

Arguments against vaccine passports are that they threaten equality by denying people the individual choice to decide whether to be vaccinated; they can be discriminatory against those who do not wish to or cannot for health reasons or religious reasons obtain a vaccine; they can marginalize those who opt out; and they can create stigma.

Additionally, arguments for alternative public health measures include their potential to address underlying health inequities and reduce reliance on a single public health strategy. Arguments against alternative public health measures include their potential effectiveness in controlling the spread of COVID-19 and facilitating the reopening of businesses and travel (Tanner & Flood, 2021).