Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36816818›Full record

ArticleEthical theory and moral practice : an international forum2023

Vaccine Passports and Political Legitimacy: A Public Reason Framework for Policymakers.

Anne Barnhill, Matteo Bonotti, Daniel Susser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethical theory and moral practice : an international forum, 2023. 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. Article
  3. Review
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.

Anne BarnhillJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Deering Hall, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA.
Matteo BonottiPolitics and International Relations, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800 Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8241-4896
Daniel SusserCollege of Information Sciences & Technology, Rock Ethics Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, E325 Westgate Building, University Park, PA 16802 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, taking its toll on people's lives around the world, vaccine passports remain a contentious topic of debate in most liberal democracies. While a small literature on vaccine passports has sprung up over the past few years that considers their ethical pros and cons, in this paper we focus on the question of when vaccine passports are politically legitimate. Specifically, we put forward a 'public reason ethics framework' for resolving ethical disputes and use the case of vaccine passports to demonstrate how it works. The framework walks users through a structured analysis of a vaccine passport proposal to determine whether the proposal can be publicly justified and is therefore legitimate. Use of this framework may also help policymakers to design more effective vaccine passports, by incorporating structured input from the public, and thereby better taking the public's interests and values into account. In short, a public reason ethics framework is meant to encourage better, more legitimate decision-making, resulting in policies that are ethically justifiable, legitimate and effective.

Indexed as

COVID-19Political legitimacyPublic reasonVaccine passports

Identifiers

PMID36816818
PMCPMC9930056

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.