Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on ...vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and political debate, there has been limited evaluation of their potential unintended consequences. Here, we outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health. While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good. Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.
...all known genetic predispositions will be available and, depending on the data sharing policy, accessible to a wide range of researchers and, possibly, the public at large--this, at a time when we ...are still seeking to understand the social, clinical, and personal implications of genetic information. More research and policy analysis on the issues associated with data release is clearly needed, including an analysis of the actual harms and benefits resulting from publicly accessible data; the implications for family members and relevant communities; the appropriate balance between public access and individual privacy interests; and considerations regarding compensation for research-related injury resulting from participation in personal genome research.
Trudo Lemmens and colleagues discuss how the mere suggestion of litigation can bias the medical literature by affecting editorial decisions. They argue that journals and authors should publicly post ...threats of litigation, or cease and desist letters, for which there are some international legal precedents.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
In response to rising demands and treatment costs, and the need to achieve better value for money in the face of tight fiscal constraints, both the National Health Service and the public drug ...reimbursement system are undergoing important reforms. Concurrently, the pharmaceutical sector itself is also alleged to be experiencing significant changes, perhaps most notably, a decline of the blockbuster model of drug development and a growing focus on niche market products. As pharmaceutical development strategies evolve and the resulting drug products become more complex, regulatory and policy responses must be able to evolve along with them. We explore how in numerous jurisdictions, including the UK, proposals for ‘adaptive licensing’ on the regulatory side and ‘performance-based risk sharing agreements’ on the funding side are shifting the focus of drug regulation and reimbursement towards more incremental access to new therapies and more post-market evidence generation. However, serious questions remain about how such reforms can be successfully implemented and whether they can balance demands for earlier access to promising new therapies with the need for robust evidence on safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness.
Industry control over the production and distribution of pharmaceutical safety and efficacy data has become a serious public health and health care funding concern. Various recent scandals, several ...involving the use of flawed representations of scientific data in the most influential medical journals, highlight the urgency of enhancing pharmaceutical knowledge governance. This paper analyzes why this is a human rights concern and what difference a human rights analysis can make. The paper first identifies the challenges associated with the current knowledge deficit. It then discusses, based on an analysis of case law, how various human rights associated interests can be invoked to support the claim that states have an obligation to actively contribute to independent knowledge governance, for example through ensuring clinical trials transparency. The paper further discusses a conceptual use of human rights, as a methodology which requires a comprehensive analysis of the different interwoven historical, economic, cultural, and social factors that contribute to the problem. Such an analysis reveals that historically grown drug regulations have, in fact, contributed directly to industry control over pharmaceutical knowledge production. This type of finding should inform needed reforms of drug regulation. The paper ends with a recommendation for a comprehensive global response to the problem of pharmaceutical knowledge governance.
PDF
