Many policies were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to manage the negative impact of the coronavirus. Limiting severe illness and death was one important objective of these policies, but it is widely acknowledged by public health ethicists that pandemic policies needed to consider other factors. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 38 people across 17 states who participated in the state-level COVID-19 pandemic policy process, we examine how those actors recounted their engagement with four different objectives over the course of the pandemic: protecting public health with respect to COVID-19 (which we refer to as pathogen-focused disease prevention), protecting the economy, promoting the public\'s broader health and wellbeing, and preserving and restoring individual freedoms. We describe the different ways that pathogen-focused disease prevention was thought to have conflicted with, or to have been coherent with, the other three policy objectives over the course of the pandemic. In tracing the shifting relationships between objectives, we highlight four reasons put forward by the participants for why policy changes occurred throughout the pandemic: a change on the part of decisionmaker(s) regarding the perceived acceptability of the negative effects of a policy on one or more policy objectives; a change in the epistemic context; a change in the \'tools in the toolbox\'; and a change in the public\'s attitudes that affected the feasibility of a policy. We conclude by considering the ethical implications of the shifting relationships that were described between objectives over the course of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well-informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia.
METHODS: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions.
RESULTS: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co-operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates.
UNASSIGNED: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents.

After almost a year and a half of the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare institutions in the United States announced that they would mandate COVID-19 vaccination, with medical and religious exceptions, as a term of employment. The mandates resulted in widely publicized protests from hospital staff, including some nurses, who argued that these medical institutions violated the ethical principle of autonomy. As the world enters the \"post-pandemic period,\" decisions such as these, made during times of crisis, must be reviewed to provide clarity for when the next pandemic occurs. In this paper, we support the argument that such mandates are ethically justifiable. We explore the framework of objections that were brought forward by dissenters of this vaccine mandate. Next, we provide an analysis of conflicting ethical principles present when such mandates were deployed. Utilizing the American Nurses Association\'s Code of Ethics for Nurses, notably provisions 2, 3, and 6 we argue that it is an ethical duty of the nurse to be vaccinated. Specifically, we turn to provision two, which most explicitly underscores the necessity of vaccination as a function of the nurse\'s primary commitment to the patient. Next, we highlight the International Council of Nurses Code of Ethics which provides similar guidance internationally. Finally, we examine the applicability of the principles of public health, care ethics, and the nursing role as frameworks to underpin such mandates both for the current and for potential future pandemics, arguing that the nurse\'s ethical duty to be vaccinated spans these contexts.

This commentary takes up a challenge posed by Franklin Miller in a 2022 essay in Bioethics Forum. Dr. Miller queried whether bioethicists could be useful in public health policy contexts and while he refrained from issuing an ultimate opinion, did identify several challenges to such utility. The current piece responds to the challenges Dr. Miller identifies and argues that with appropriate training, public health ethicists can be of service in virtually any context in which public health policies are deliberated and decided.

This paper addresses the critiques based on trade-offs and normativity presented in response to our target article proposing the Public Health Emergency Risk and Crisis Communication (PHERCC) framework. These critiques highlight the ethical dilemmas in crisis communication, particularly the balance between promoting public autonomy through transparent information and the potential stigmatization of specific population groups, as illustrated by the discussion of the mpox outbreak among men who have sex with men. This critique underscores the inherent tension between communication effectiveness and autonomy versus fairness and equity. In response, our paper reiterates the adaptability of the PHERCC framework, emphasizing its capacity to tailor messages to diverse audiences, thereby reducing potential stigmatization and misinformation. Through community engagement and feedback integration, the PHERCC framework aims to optimize the effectiveness of communication strategies while addressing ethical concerns. Furthermore, by involving affected communities in the communication strategy from the onset, the framework seeks to minimize ethical trade-offs and enhance the acceptance and effectiveness of public health messages.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent, global threat to public health. The development and implementation of effective measures to address AMR is vitally important but presents important ethical questions. This is a policy area requiring further sustained attention to ensure that policies proposed in National Action Plans on AMR are ethically acceptable and preferable to alternatives that might be fairer or more effective, for instance. By ethically analysing case studies of coercive actions to address AMR across countries, we can better inform policy in a context-specific manner. In this article, I consider an example of coercive antimicrobial stewardship policy in Canada, namely restrictions on livestock farmers\' access to certain antibiotics for animal use without a vet\'s prescription. I introduce and analyse two ethical arguments that might plausibly justify coercive action in this case: the harm principle and a duty of collective easy rescue. In addition, I consider the factors that might generally limit the application of those ethical concepts, such as challenges in establishing causation or evidencing the scale of the harm to be averted. I also consider specifics of the Canadian context in contrast to the UK and Botswana as example settings, to demonstrate how context-specific factors might mean a coercive policy that is ethically justified in one country is not so in another.

UNASSIGNED: Asia hosts the second-largest international migrant population in the world. In Southeast Asia (SEA), key types of migration are labour migration, forced migration, and environmental migration. This scoping review seeks to identify key themes and gaps in current research on the ethics of healthcare for mobile and marginalised populations in SEA, and the ethics of research involving these populations.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a scoping review using three broad concepts: population (stateless population, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced people), issues (healthcare and ethics), and context (11 countries in SEA). Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched from 2000 until May 2023 over a period of four months (February 2023 to May 2023). Other relevant publications were identified through citation searches, and six bioethics journals were hand searched. All searches were conducted in English, and relevant publications were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were subsequently imported into NVivo 14, and thematic analysis was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: We identified 18 papers with substantial bioethical analysis. Ethical concepts that guide the analysis were \'capability, agency, dignity\', \'vulnerability\', \'precarity, complicity, and structural violence\' (n=7). Ethical issues were discussed from the perspective of research ethics (n=9), clinical ethics (n=1) and public health ethics (n=1). All publications are from researchers based in Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia. Research gaps identified include the need for more research involving migrant children, research from migrant-sending countries, studies on quality of migrant healthcare, participatory health research, and research with internal migrants.
UNASSIGNED: More empirical research is necessary to better understand the ethical issues that exist in the domains of research, clinical care, and public health. Critical examination of the interplay between migration, health and ethics with consideration of the diverse factors and contexts involved is crucial for the advancement of migration health ethics in SEA.

In this paper I discuss the important yet overlooked role played by time in public health ethics, clinical ethics, and personal ethics, and present an exploratory analysis of temporal inequalities and temporal autonomy.

Social isolation and loneliness are growing concerns around the globe that put people at increased risk of disease and early death. One much-touted approach to addressing them is deploying artificially intelligent agents to serve as companions for socially isolated and lonely people. Focusing on digital humans, we consider evidence and ethical arguments for and against this approach. We set forth and defend public health policies that respond to concerns about replacing humans, establishing inferior relationships, algorithmic bias, distributive justice, and data privacy.

Should people get vaccinated for the sake of others? What could ground-and limit-the normative claim that people ought to do so? In this paper, we propose a reasons-based consequentialist account of vaccination for the benefit of others. We outline eight harm-based and probabilistic factors that, we argue, give people moral reasons to get vaccinated. Instead of understanding other-directed vaccination in terms of binary moral duties (i.e., where people either have or do not have a moral duty to get vaccinated), we develop a scalar approach according to which people can have stronger or weaker moral reasons to get vaccinated in view of the moral good of vaccination. One advantage of our approach is that it can capture why a person might have strong moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine A, but only weak moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine B. We discuss theoretical strengths of our approach and provide a case study of vaccination against COVID-19 to demonstrate its practical significance.