Introduction
Globally, significant effort has been put to create vaccines against COVID-19. By February 2021, numerous vaccines had been authorized and implemented in several countries; some are undergoing clinical trials while others are in the pre-clinical stage (Shrotri et al. 590). Prioritization of healthcare personnel is a recurring aspect in COVID-19 vaccine distribution plans to date. Health care workers, including doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, and others, should be prioritized in vaccine allocation since they are at a greater risk of contracting the virus. Immunization rates, on the other hand, have been low among health care personnel. The disparity between desired and actual vaccination rates raises the question of whether voluntary vaccination should be phased out, favouring mandatory immunization. As a result, this paper deliberates the importance of mandating the COVID-19 vaccine to health care works.
Discussion
The pandemic crisis has increased hospital staffing and resource constraints, highlighting the need to protect health care workers. Health care personnel are more likely than the general public to become infected with infectious illnesses. Immunization against the virus would safeguard health care works, act as a barrier to the spread of diseases, and keep healthcare services running during the pandemic (Emanuel and Skorton 1308). Due to this, healthcare facilities must have infection control measures, and many of them mandate the COVID-19 immunization for healthcare personnel. These institutions are legally and ethically obligated to provide a safe environment for their employees and patients. In addition, the widespread use of vaccines in health care facilities may minimize the scarcity of workers because they prevent hospitalizations. However, the pressure of working during the crisis could make COVID -19 vaccine obligations ineffective even among health personnel. Providing non-medical exemptions to mandates could help alleviate worries among health care workers.
The health care professional societies must guide their members on the proper conduct and virtues of the therapeutic professions and satisfy the public’s anticipations. If health care workers appear to recommend vaccines for others while avoiding them for themselves, public confidence will be eroded. Furthermore, medical professionals have a responsibility to ensure that their patients are protected from the disease. Since health care workers choose their profession willingly, it follows that they are expected to uphold professional values while also taking on a certain amount of individual risk to provide care (Emanuel and Skorton 1308). As a result, the public’s confidence in vaccines grows when they see more health care personnel getting vaccinated. Herd immunity can thus be achieved, in which individuals are immune to avoid the spread of the disease (Emanuel and Skorton 1309). Therefore, all health care personnel should be given the COVID-19 vaccination, which would otherwise encourage the general public to get vaccinated.
Vaccinating health care workers against COVID-19 is not new; instead, it is a continuation of long-established procedures and policies. Numerous health facilities have long enforced vaccinations against hepatitis B, influenza, and other infectious diseases for their employees (Emanuel and Skorton 1308). As a result, healthcare providers have historically served as role models for healthy practices, most notably immunization. Hence, each individual, working collaboratively in health care, may exemplify public health practices. One way to have a beneficial impact is to demonstrate the critical nature of taking the COVID-19 vaccination — and, indeed, all vaccines. Enforcing vaccination requirements on health care providers essentially fulfils this ethical commitment. Moreover, it is a means of pushing individuals in the correct direction.
It is critical to understand that vaccination mandates result in an upsurge in vaccination rates. For example, after Houston Methodist Hospital mandated vaccinations, 99.5 per cent of employees received the vaccine, with only a few refusing to be immunized (Emanuel and Skorton 1308). Several companies with over 250 long-term care centres have similarly enforced COVID-19 vaccinations (Emanuel and Skorton 1308). There, too, over 95% of workers — and in some circumstances, 100% — have been immunized, but few have refused vaccinations (Emanuel and David 1308). Having more workers vaccinated and fewer workers out recovering from COVID-19 will also alleviate pressure on workers, enhancing the health care workforce’s adaptability.
Immunization against COVID-19 among health workers should be mandated due to the poor turnout of health care providers who should act as an example to the public. As a result, nurses and health care employees must be taught about the significance of vaccination and the possible health effects of the disease for themselves, their clients, and close relatives. Vaccine anxiety among healthcare professionals is not unusual and has been documented with the influenza vaccine (Hogan et al. 495). The low uptake, referred to as vaccination hesitancy, among caregivers is undoubtedly cause for worry, as is the possibility of increased vaccine refusal in the broader population. However, there are subtle distinctions between vaccination hesitancy and vaccine denial. In general, vaccination hesitancy is to account for the low uptake among the majority of health providers.
Again, vaccination among health care workers should be mandated since the availability of the vaccine is limited. Since health care workers are the front liners dealing directly with COVID-19 patients, they must be immunized given the deadly consequences of the virus. If universal vaccination becomes mandatory, it will limit the vaccine’s global supply, particularly in developing countries with high disease loads. In addition, there is no method to manufacture doses sufficient to vaccinate the universe.
While campaigns for mandatory COVID-19 vaccine to health care workers may have significant benefits, it has encountered notable opposition. Other scholars argue that a forced COVID-19 vaccination could be interpreted as discriminatory, resulting in stigma and amplifying existing inequities throughout the pandemic (Emanuel and Skorton 1308). However, this may be untrue due to the legality of such mandates. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and courts have established, employers have the right to enforce vaccination as a mandatory requirement (Emanuel and Skorton 1308). This right applies to vaccinations approved for emergency use and those that the Food and Drug Administration has entirely approved.
Similarly, other scholars dispute that mandatory vaccination is seen unfavourably since it does not address several issues raised by healthcare providers, such as poor staffing and professional burnout, underpayment, and demanding shifts (Emmanuel and Skorton 1308). While requiring vaccination has no direct effect on the need for health care workers, it has called for an increase in the number of health care employees in health facilities. In addition, the epidemic exposed significant gaps previously neglected at the hospital, including cultural sensitivity, level of competency, and poor wages.
Finally, requiring all health care personnel to get vaccinated is unnecessary. Other scholars argue that there is no longer a public benefit concern if immunizations are perfect because once a person is vaccinated, they no longer worry if others are vaccinated (Sen et al. 463). This is not true since reinfections have been detected in large numbers (Sen et al. 463). There is a question mark over the long-term viability of vaccines in light of these incidents and studies that suggest a decline in the prevalence of the virus. According to many specialists, multiple and frequent injections of the COVID-19 vaccination may be necessary (Sen et al. 463). Since the South African variation on the AstraZeneca vaccine recently revealed that viral mutation might render the vaccination weaker or ineffective (Sen et al. 463). Therefore, all individuals must be immunized to avoid widespread infection of the virus.
Conclusion
There are both advantages and disadvantages to getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Disadvantages being on the lower side as compared to advantages. Therefore, it is morally acceptable to require that health care workers be vaccinated willingly and follow all other disease prevention measures. Health care workers, patients’ wellbeing, and equitable regulations and exemptions should all be examined. If voluntary vaccination adoption has failed to meet desired rates, compulsory measures should be explored if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for health care workers. For those who advocate obligatory vaccination, all scientific, legal, ethical, and financial prerequisites are met. Vaccination should therefore be standard practice for healthcare workers, much like hand washing and conventional precautions.
It is preferable for opponents of mandatory measures to obtain higher adoption rates by consensus rather than force, as coercive measures would incur the cost of dispute and mistrust and have long-term negative consequences. Healthcare facilities are responsible for safeguarding clients from the spread of diseases, remaining operational during epidemics, and earning the public’s trust. Immunity among health care workers is beneficial for themselves, their clients, and the general population.
Works Cited
Emanuel, Ezekiel J., and David J. Skorton. “Mandating COVID-19 Vaccination for Health Care Workers.” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 174, no. 9, 2021, pp. 1308-1310.
Hogan, Victoria, et al. “Influenza Vaccine Uptake and Attitudes of Healthcare Workers in Ireland.” Occupational Medicine, vol. 69, no. 7, 2019, pp. 494-499.
Sen, Manas Kamal, et al. “Contentious Issue in Recurrent COVID-19 Infection: Reactivation or Reinfection.” Turkish Thoracic Journal, vol. 21, no. 6, 2020 pp. 463-466.
Shrotri, Madhumita, et al. “An Interactive Website Tracking COVID-19 Vaccine Development.” The Lancet Global Health, vol. 9, no. 5, 2021, pp. 590-592.