Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34940937›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2021

Which Vaccine? The Cost of Religious Freedom in Vaccination Policy.

Alberto Giubilini, Julian Savulescu, Dominic Wilkinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Lost Idyll of Connection?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alberto GiubiliniOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. alberto.giubilini@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5163-3017
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Dominic WilkinsonOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 104848/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We discuss whether and under what conditions people should be allowed to choose which COVID-19 vaccine to receive on the basis of personal ethical views. The problem arises primarily with regard to some religious groups' concerns about the connection between certain COVID-19 vaccines and abortion. Vaccines currently approved in Western countries make use of foetal cell lines obtained from aborted foetuses either at the testing stage (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines) or at the development stage (Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine). The Catholic Church's position is that, if there are alternatives, Catholic people have a moral obligation to request the vaccine whose link with abortion is more remote, which at present means that they should refuse the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. We argue that any consideration regarding free choice of the vaccine should apply to religious and non-religious claims alike, in order to avoid religion-based discrimination. However, we also argue that, in a context of limited availability, considering the significant differences in costs and effectiveness profile of the vaccines available, people should only be allowed to choose the preferred vaccine if: 1) this does not risk compromising vaccination strategies; and 2) they internalize any additional cost that their choice might entail. The State should only subsidize the vaccine that is more cost-effective for any demographic group from the point of view of public health strategies.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleFreedom of ReligionHumansPolicyPregnancySARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19Pandemic ethicsReligious freedomVaccination ethics

Identifiers

PMID34940937
PMCPMC8696246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.