Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42201631›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Ethical Principles in Legal Context: Vaccine Mandates During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia.

A Thomasson, J Williams, S Drislane, M Rizzi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

A ThomassonUniversity of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. amy.thomasson@uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-4562-3514
J WilliamsUniversity of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
S DrislaneUniversity of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.
M RizziUniversity of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination is both a clinical intervention and a public health tool, creating an inherent tension between individual rights and collective goods in the context of mandatory vaccination policies. There is an additional layer of complexity to this in the context of a significant public health crisis. The law has similarly had to manage the tension between consent and coercion with respect to vaccine mandates. Broadly speaking, "mandatory vaccination" is any policy or directive that makes vaccination a condition of being able to participate in a particular activity or to receive a particular benefit. COVID-19 vaccine mandates were introduced in varying forms in every Australian jurisdiction in 2021. This article explores the extent to which the law grappled with the principles and obligations that stem from the ethical principle of autonomy on an individual level and the countervailing pressure of protecting public health in Australia. Applying the ethical framework set out by the World Health Organization COVID-19 Ethics and Governance Working Group, this article considers synergies between law and ethics and makes the case for a more principled and ethically informed policy approach to vaccine mandates in any future public health emergency in Australia.

Indexed as

BioethicsCOVID-19Human rightsPublic health lawVaccine mandates

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.