US college covid-19 vaccine mandates don’t consider immunity or pregnancy, and may run foul of the law

Abstract Background The Swiss Epidemics Act 2016 foresees no vaccine mandates in routine settings. Only in certain settings can the federal government, after consulting with Swiss cantons, “declare vaccinations mandatory for risk groups, persons at threat of particular exposure, and persons exercising certain activities once a serious danger has been established.” Parliament proposed this Act in March 2012 arguing that recent infectious disease outbreaks required stronger preparedness plans clearly delineating responsibilities of the Confederation, cantons, and third parties. Swiss naturopath Trappitsch gathered >75,000 signatures to launch a referendum contesting the law. Main criticisms dealt with ambiguous language around mandates, infringement upon individual liberty, and fear of an overreaching federal government. Nevertheless, the Swiss populace voted to pass the law (60% in favor) in September 2013. Methods Qualitative interviews with key informants (N = 5 public health officials-PHO) and analysis of press coverage of the legislation/referendum allow for an investigation of the ambiguity of the mandate language and the referendum's consequences on this issue in public discourses. Results Several PHOs/politicians stated during the referendum that “nobody would be vaccinated against their will” and implied that the law would apply, for example, to non-vaccinated healthcare professionals who could be transferred to different care units to protect patients. Such specificities never appeared in the law. Ambiguous language around mandates served as a point of contention around which vaccination critics united and gained political traction. Such criticisms put State actors in the position of needing to more clearly articulate their perspectives. Conclusions With neighboring countries enacting vaccine mandate policies (France, Italy, Germany) in response to resurgence in measles cases, current legislative language leaves the question of mandates open to interpretation

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Ethical Challenges: Less About Moral Wrongdoing and More About Communication Breakdown

Perspectives on Gerontology ◽

10.1044/gero20.3.72 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 20 (3) ◽

pp. 72-84 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Paula Leslie ◽

Mary Casper

Keyword(s):

Ethical Challenges ◽

Speech Language Pathology ◽

Thickened Liquids ◽

Communication Breakdown ◽

Professional Duty ◽

Language Pathology ◽

The Law ◽

Personal Case

“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former? In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.

Get full-text (via PubEx)