Introduction
The article talks about NHS specialists facing potential sacking because they refuse to comply with vaccination. Under the new NHS policy, frontline staff has until April 1 to get fully vaccinated or risk being removed from frontline roles (Meierhans, 2022). Around 80,000 NHS staff have refused vaccination so far on various grounds (Meierhans, 2022). The primary complaints against vaccines include the likelihood of various side effects associated with them, the inability of the treatment to guarantee full protection, and the assertion of dominion over one’s body (Meierhans, 2022). Many of the interviewed employees have stated that they are willing to lose their jobs on principle, rather than allow the government to force them into treatment (Meierhans, 2022). The consequences of this decision include losing many valuable NHS employees and the violation of the right to privacy and choosing medical treatments versus the potential safety of patients.
Value Theory Application
The chosen value theory to be applied is Utilitarian theory ethics, which is teleological and is focused on consequences and results. Utilitarianism focuses on providing maximum utility for the majority of persons. From that perspective, the benefits for the patients (the majority) are weighted against the potential suffering of doctors (the minority) (Robert et al., 2020). Despite the arguments to the contrary, vaccines do help in reducing the consequences of COVID-19 on those infected, while also making it less likely for a person to get sick (Robert et al., 2020). At the same time, the side effects of vaccines are typically temporary and have a very rare chance of appearing. From that point of view, the health and safety of many patients are more important than the perceived issues with the vaccine from those few doctors who refused to vaccinate. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that their vocal protests undermine the vaccination efforts among the general populace. From a utilitarian perspective, thus, it is ethical to move these people to positions where they are less likely to become carriers of disease.
Principles of Healthcare Ethics
The principle of nonmaleficence is one of the oldest in medicine. A doctor is supposed to not harm (Rhodes, 2020). The decision made by the NHS is based largely on this principle – if doctors are vaccinated, they are less likely to spread disease to other patients (Meierhans, 2022). At the same time, the vaccine itself has a small chance to cause damage to those who take it, which could be considered a violation of the principles of nonmaleficence (Rhodes, 2020). Nevertheless, potential side effects are present in nearly all treatments, including those that modern medicine cannot do without. In conjunction with utilitarian ethics, this principle is effectively transformed into the principle of the lesser evil, for the greater benefit of all (Rhodes, 2020). Therefore, the decision made by the NHS ultimately fulfills the principle.
Conclusion
The decision of the NHS to suspend doctors, nurses, and other specialists who did not undergo vaccination was tumultuous and controversial. Nevertheless, the decision was made on ethical grounds. The primary guidelines that NHS utilized were the ideas of the greater good, associated with utilitarianism, as well as the principle of non-maleficence. While from other ethical perspectives, the decision could be considered inappropriate; there are no easy answers to the dilemma. From one point or another, any decision will be considered wrong. The one taken by the government agency has the purpose of saving lives over upholding individual liberties.
References
Meierhans, J. (2022). Covid vaccines: The unvaccinated NHS workers facing the sack. BBS News.
Robert, R., Kentish-Barnes, N., Boyer, A., Laurent, A., Azoulay, E., & Reignier, J. (2020). Ethical dilemmas due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Annals of Intensive Care, 10(1), 1-9.
Rhodes, R. (2020). The trusted doctor: Medical ethics and professionalism. Oxford University Press.