Comprehensive Pharmaceutical Accountability and Transparency Act (PATA)

Health
,
13

Deontological Analysis of Public Health Actions During the SARS-Cov-2 Pandemic

Terminology Shift and Ethical Implications:

  1. Clarification of Function:

    • Vaccine: Traditionally, a vaccine prevents or significantly reduces the likelihood of infection by stimulating an immune response. If the product doesn’t prevent infection but reduces severity or transmission, calling it a “therapeutic” might more accurately describe its function as something that treats or mitigates the disease after exposure rather than preventing it.

  2. Public Perception and Consent:

    • Informed Consent: Changing the terminology could lead to a clearer understanding that these products might not confer traditional immunity but rather offer a level of treatment or symptom reduction. This clarity is crucial for informed consent, ensuring individuals understand what they are consenting to.

  3. Ethical Analysis Adjustments:

    • Utilitarianism:

      • With “therapeutics,” the discussion might shift from preventing infection to managing disease outcomes. The greatest good would then be evaluated based on reducing severity, hospital load, or long-term health implications rather than outright prevention.

    • Deontology:

      • The duty to inform would now emphasize the therapeutic nature, highlighting that these products will not stop one from getting infected but could help in recovery or reducing the disease’s impact. This could change the ethical conversation around mandates, focusing on treatment rights rather than prevention.

    • Virtue Ethics:

      • Honesty would require leaders to use precise language to describe these products. If marketed as vaccines but functioning as therapeutics, this could be seen as misleading and lacking in integrity.

  4. Regulatory and Policy Implications:

    • Regulatory Standards: Therapeutics often undergo different regulatory scrutiny compared to vaccines. The emergency use authorization would be critiqued differently if viewed through the lens of therapeutic approval processes.

    • Policy Making: Policies like mandates would be seen differently; if these are therapeutics, the justification for compulsion changes from preventing public harm to ensuring treatment availability, which would not carry the same ethical weight.

  5. Public Health Strategy:

    • Health Communication: Public health messages would need to adapt, focusing on how these therapeutics work within the broader health strategy, possibly leading to different approaches in public compliance and acceptance.

    • Disease Management: Viewing these products as therapeutics would encourage a broader health strategy that includes other forms of treatment, preventive measures, and health system readiness for managing cases rather than solely preventing them.

Critique of Language Use:

  • Misleading Terminology: If public health officials and manufacturers have used the term “vaccine” knowing the product’s primary function was therapeutic, this could be seen as a manipulation of public perception, influencing consent and policy acceptance.

  • Legal and Ethical Precedents: The terminology issue might affect legal challenges related to mandates, liability, and consumer protection laws. If products were marketed with claims akin to traditional vaccines, but act more like therapeutics, this could lead to legal disputes over advertising, consent, and the rights of individuals.

Suggestions for Addressing Terminology:

  • Clear Definitions: Establish and communicate clear definitions for “vaccine,” “therapeutic,” and other relevant terms in public health discourse.

  • Regulatory Clarity: Regulatory agencies should clarify their stance on these products, perhaps creating subcategories or new classifications that reflect the nuanced roles these products play.

  • Ethical Communication: Ensure all public health messaging reflects the true nature of the product, avoiding language that implies traditional vaccine-like immunity when that’s not the case.

  • Policy Reevaluation: Public health policies, especially those involving mandates, should be revisited in light of this terminology, ensuring they align with the ethical implications of the product’s actual function.

This shift in terminology can lead to a more precise ethical, legal, and public health conversation, potentially altering how we view the responsibilities of regulators, manufacturers, and the rights of individuals in the context of health emergencies.

When considering the ethical and deontological arguments in light of the fact that the definition of “vaccine” was changed to fit the characteristics of the COVID-19 injectables, several key points emerge:

Deontological Perspective:

  1. Informed Consent:

    • Original Definition: If the traditional definition of a vaccine was altered, this directly impacts the principle of informed consent. Individuals were potentially misled about what they were consenting to since the expectations typically associated with vaccines (prevention of disease) were not fully met.
    • Ethical Implication: From a deontological standpoint, consent given under false pretenses is not true consent. This could be seen as a violation of the principle of autonomy and respect for persons.

  2. Duty of Truthfulness:

    • Public Health Responsibility: There’s a duty for public health officials and pharmaceutical companies to be truthful about the nature of the product. Changing definitions to fit a narrative can be viewed as a breach of this duty, undermining the moral integrity of health communications.

  3. Duty to Protect:

    • Public Health vs. Individual Rights: If the product’s primary function was therapeutic rather than preventative, the justification for mandates will be ethically questionable unless it’s clearly communicated that it’s about treatment rather than prevention.

Ethical Critique:

  1. Honesty and Transparency:

    • Virtue of Honesty: Leaders and regulators are expected to uphold virtues like honesty. Altering definitions to fit a product could be interpreted as a lack of honesty, which undermines public trust and the ethical framework of public health policy.
    • Transparency: The change in definition without clear public acknowledgment or debate could be seen as a lack of transparency, which is crucial for ethical governance.

  2. Moral Consistency:

    • Consistency in Application: Ethical consistency requires that definitions and policies align with scientific understanding. Changing the definition to include products that do not traditionally fit the vaccine model disrupts this consistency, potentially for economic or political reasons rather than scientific or ethical ones.

  3. Justice:

    • Fairness in Information: Altering definitions to favor one set of interventions over others (like excluding other treatments) could be seen as an injustice, especially if other potentially effective treatments were sidelined because they didn’t fit the new narrative around what constitutes a “vaccine.”

Language and Ethical Arguments:

  • Reframing Consent: Ethically, the language used should now reflect the true nature of the product. Discussions about informed consent should use terms like “therapeutic” to clarify that individuals are consenting to a treatment, not a traditional vaccine.

  • Clarifying Public Health Goals: Ethical arguments should pivot to frame these products as part of a broader therapeutic strategy rather than solely a preventive one. This changes the discourse around public health measures, focusing on treatment equity and access rather than just prevention.

  • Highlighting Ethical Breaches: When discussing the ethical issues, emphasize how the change in terminology was used to:

    • Manipulate public perception
    • Influence policy decisions
    • Potentially bypass rigorous scrutiny that other treatments might have been subjected to

  • Policy Language: Policies and mandates need to be written or rewritten with precise language that reflects the actual function of these products. This would align with deontological principles of truthfulness and respect for autonomy.

  • Public Discourse: Encourage a public discourse that critically examines the role of terminology in health policy, advocating for clear, honest communication as a fundamental ethical requirement.

Deontological Analysis:

1. Informed Consent:

  • Change in Definition:

    • Issue: The alteration of the definition of therapeutics to be classified under vaccines led to an assumption of traditional vaccine benefits (prevention) when the actual effect was more therapeutic (mitigation of symptoms or severity).
    • Ethical Implication: True informed consent requires full disclosure. If individuals consented to these therapeutics under the guise of traditional vaccines, their consent could be seen as invalidated, violating the Kantian principle of autonomy.

  • Coercion and Mandates:

    • Issue: Mandates for these therapeutics under the label of vaccines could be critiqued as coercive, especially if individuals believed they were opting for prevention rather than treatment.
    • Ethical Consideration: The duty to respect autonomy suggests that mandates for therapeutics should be scrutinized more closely, ensuring individuals have a real choice, not just an illusion of one due to misleading nomenclature.

2. Duty to Inform:

  • Transparency in Product Nature:

    • Issue: There was a failure to clearly communicate that these were therapeutics rather than traditional vaccines, which might not prevent infection but could lessen disease severity.
    • Ethical Implication: The duty to inform includes explaining the true nature, risks, benefits, and limitations of the product. Mislabeling affects this duty, potentially breaching the ethical obligation to provide complete information.

  • Public Health Communication:

    • Issue: If public communications used the term “vaccine” to describe therapeutics, this could have swayed public opinion and policy acceptance.
    • Ethical Consideration: Deontology would argue for clear, honest communication as a moral imperative, especially when public health is concerned.

3. Bodily Autonomy:

  • Mandates for Therapeutics:
    • Issue: Mandating therapeutics under the label of vaccines could be seen as an overreach, especially if the justification for mandates is based on prevention rather than treatment.
    • Ethical Implication: From a deontological perspective, bodily autonomy is paramount. Mandates should only be justified by a clear, direct threat to public safety, not by therapeutic benefits alone unless those benefits are clearly communicated and consented to.

4. Duty to Warn:

  • Emergency Use Authorization (EUA):
    • Issue: The EUA process for these therapeutics did not adequately highlight their therapeutic nature, focusing instead on the vaccine narrative.
    • Ethical Consideration: There’s a duty to warn about all known risks and the nature of the product. If side effects or the limitations of these therapeutics were not fully disclosed due to their misclassification, this duty was not upheld.

5. Duty of Paternalism vs. Autonomy:

  • Public Health Strategy:
    • Issue: The strategy leaned towards paternalism by promoting these therapeutics as vaccines, potentially undermining individual autonomy in health decisions.
    • Ethical Implication: While public health sometimes requires paternalistic actions, these must be balanced with respect for autonomy. The language used can skew this balance if not carefully managed.

6. Justice:

  • Equity in Health Measures:
    • Issue: If other treatments were marginalized due to the focus on these therapeutics under the vaccine label, this could represent an injustice.
    • Ethical Consideration: Justice in deontology involves fairness in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Mislabeling could lead to an unjust prioritization of one intervention over others without clear medical or ethical justification.

Ethical Recommendations Based on Deontology:

  • Reinstatement of True Terminology: Use precise language in all future public health communications, clearly distinguishing between preventive vaccines and therapeutic interventions.

  • Public Acknowledgment and Apology: Acknowledge any misleading terminology used, offering an apology for the confusion this caused.

  • Policy Revision: Review and possibly revise mandates and policies to reflect the therapeutic nature of these interventions, ensuring they respect individual rights and autonomy.

  • Enhanced Informed Consent Processes: Develop and enforce stricter guidelines for informed consent that account for nuanced differences between vaccines and therapeutics.

  • Ethical Oversight: Strengthen or establish ethical oversight bodies to ensure that future public health strategies do not compromise deontological principles through misleading information or terminology.

By reframing the discussion with the correct terminology, we can better align public health actions with ethical standards that prioritize truthfulness, autonomy, and justice.

  • Post-Marketing Surveillance:
    • Issue: Once “vaccines” (therapeutics mislabelled as vaccines) were rolled out, continuous monitoring for adverse effects is essential.
    • Ethical Consideration: Reporting mechanisms like VAERS should be proactive in informing the public about any emerging issues, balancing the need for vigilance with the duty to prevent public panic.

Ethical Implications:

  • Respect for Autonomy: Deontology emphasizes the respect for individual autonomy as an end in itself, not merely as a means to an end like public health. Policies that coerce vaccination infringe upon this principle.

  • Duty of Paternalism vs. Autonomy: In public health, there’s often a tension between a paternalistic duty to protect citizens’ health and the duty to respect their autonomy. Finding the ethical balance is key.

  • Justice and Fairness: Even within deontological ethics, there’s a concern for fairness. Were vulnerable groups, who had less access to information or resources to consent fully, treated justly in the process of vaccine distribution and policy enforcement?

Conclusion:

The alteration of the definition should be a central point in ethical discussions, highlighting:

  • A need for ethical language: The use of precise and honest terminology in health policy and communication.
  • Critical review of public health strategies: Ensuring that definitions are not manipulated to serve non-health related goals.
  • Restoration of trust: Ethical practices must aim to restore public trust through transparency and truthfulness, which includes reevaluating past decisions in light of this terminology shift.

Potential Ethical Failings:

  • If information was withheld or downplayed to increase pharmaceutical product uptake, this would be a significant ethical lapse from a deontological standpoint.
  • If mandates were enacted without providing viable alternatives or exemptions for those with genuine ethical, religious, or health-based objections, this could be seen as disregarding the principle of respect for persons.

Suggestions for Upholding Deontological Ethics:

  • Enhance Informed Consent: Develop comprehensive educational campaigns detailing therapeutic vs. vaccine information, ensuring individuals have access to all necessary data without coercion.

  • Balanced Policy Making: Implement countermeasures with clear, narrow justifications, exemptions, and alternatives that respect individual rights.

  • Strengthen Post-Marketing Surveillance: Ensure there are robust systems in place to report and act on adverse events swiftly, maintaining a duty to warn throughout the lifecycle of pandemic interventions.

  • Ethical Oversight: Establish or empower ethical review boards with the authority to oversee these aspects, ensuring decisions align with deontological principles during public health emergencies.

Addendum:

Deposition testimony of Whistleblower lawsuit
where the government sided with Pfizer because the countermeasure was a therapeutic, not a vaccine.

3 Likes