Latest / Health Ethics Podcast / Conscience, Vaccines, and the Obligations of Community

Transcript

Conscience, Vaccines, and the Obligations of Community · Health Ethics Podcast

0:12
Welcome to the COVID Ethics Series podcast, a conversation with leading experts about bioethical
0:18
issues that have been exacerbated due to the COVID nineteen pandemic on Brian Pilkington and
0:24
I teach bioethics at Seton Hall University and at the Hackensack Maritan School of Medicine.
0:29
I moderate the COVID Ethics Series in cooperation with the IHS Library and IHS
0:34
Student Life. This podcast is a spinoff collaboration with the IHS Library where we'll
0:39
have the opportunity to go deeper with the experts from our series. Thanks for
0:43
joining our conversation. The first few minutes of this program we're not recorded.
0:49
We apologize for this inconvenience. This is about a nebulous fear of government overreach
0:57
and distrust of the CDC and so on. And I'm not saying that some
1:00
of those concerns aren't well founded or not legitimate concerns. But here's what we
1:07
have to wagh say. As an institution that's trying to decide whether to impose
1:10
a mandate or what type of exemptions to allow, is this person and expressing
1:15
their conscientious objection receiving this particular vaccine and the reason that they're giving for it
1:22
is it consistent with other things that they'll do. And so I'll just give
1:27
one quick example. A lot of people who have a religious based objection to
1:32
these vaccines is because of the remote material causal connection to at least one abortion,
1:38
potentially two that were done forty fifty years ago that created these immortalized cell
1:44
lines that were then used in the development testing these vaccines. And what we've
1:49
now come to know, I mean, it's been known, but maybe the
1:52
general public didn't really realize, is how ubiquitous these cell lines are in research.
1:57
Are all sorts of pharmaceuticals over the canter pharmaceuticals and processed food additives and
2:02
so on. So now that they know this, they may not have known
2:06
that the form. Now they know this, are they also going to stop
2:07
taking app build let me get a headache? Are they going to stop eating
2:12
frozen meals? Because it's likely also these cell lines were involved in there.
2:15
So we can test for certain things, right, We test for consistency and
2:21
is the person really informed about making this conscientious choice? And Jason, that's
2:27
excellent. I was going to say, you open the door with the reference
2:30
to the Catholic intellectual tradition of us getting into a really geeky Thomas fight,
2:35
but I'm going to avoid that. For everyone else. I really appreciate,
2:38
especially for all of my students who are on this on this call the point
2:44
about consistency, so that's really helpful. We may come back to the Catholic
2:47
intellectual tradition, but I'm going to move forward, bugger other panelists, and
2:51
then we'll loop you back into the Q and A. So thank you very
2:53
much. We're now going to turn to our second panelists and take a slightly
2:58
more focused view. Paul Cummins is a research assistant professor at Bioethics at in
3:06
Bioethics at Clarkson University, and also works at Mount Sinai in New York,
3:10
a place I'm quite fond of as my daughter was born there. Paul,
3:14
it's great to see you. Thanks for joining me. Yeah, it's great
3:16
to be here. Thank you for having me, Brian, and I'm looking
3:23
forward to being part of this conversation with you At Jason and Kirk, Well,
3:28
we're very glad you're here. So for folks who don't know, Paul's
3:31
written a phenomenal piece which just well came out recently in Healthcare Ethics Committee form
3:37
and an issue devoted to questions of conscience. And I'm going to go right
3:40
there, so lots of times, and I'll give a little background Paul,
3:44
and then you can correct it. But for folks who are a little less
3:46
familiar with sort of the ethical theories and the debates around conscience, questions of
3:53
conscience and healthcare and more broadly are often discussed as it's a two party issue,
4:00
right, So in thinking about healthcare, it's often patient and practitioner.
4:04
It had been patient and physician historically, and so it's viewed as well as
4:11
two folks sort of engage in this. Some of Paul's work, especially in
4:15
this paper, highlights what more folks have been talking about, which is that
4:18
as physicians and other healthcare workers are increasingly employed by hospital, by hospitals and
4:26
healthcare systems, we really need to think about this as a tripart type relationship,
4:30
right, which brings the employer in. So you should all go read
4:33
and download Paul's piece. But Paul help us think through the sort of complicated
4:41
landscape of folks who might be asking for vaccine exemptions of particularly employed folks,
4:48
workers in hospitals or other settings, who might be asking for exemptions in light
4:53
of this tripart type relationship. Right, So I think there are So what
5:00
I'll say is, I think characterizing as three as a three place relationship makes
5:05
sense in the way that there are multiple parties with stakes in the outcome of
5:13
an instance where a healthcare provider claims a conscientious objection. I think, what
5:20
it still remains a two place relationship in the sense that there's the person who
5:27
asks to exercise conscientious subjection, and then there's the party that has to respond
5:31
to that request. And so I got to thinking about it in these terms
5:41
a little bit, because you know, I saw in different places that there
5:45
were more and more formal complaints to you know, the government, that people
5:51
were claiming that their personal conscientious or religious beliefs were being violated by their employers,
5:58
right. And what struck me is that when we think of the relationship
6:04
between a provider and a patient, the patient they have very little recourse,
6:10
right they asked the provider for something, the provider says, no, I
6:14
conscientiously object and the patient can't do anything about it, right, Like,
6:19
Okay, I can't do anything. But when there's an employer in the picture
6:27
who is expecting the employee healthcare provider to carry out job responsibilities, now suddenly
6:34
there is a party in place who can do something about the refusal. Right.
6:40
And so it struck me is that questions like do people have a right
6:46
to conscientious objection? Right? And is it absolute in the way that Jason
6:48
sort of introduced as one way of thinking it in the past, And maybe
6:53
it's become more complicated because of the facts of the pandemic aren't really the central
7:00
question, right, So I take a conscientious objection, like an instance of
7:06
a conscientious objection to be a request by an individual to be made exempt or
7:15
uh you know, uh you know, relieved of an expectation or freed from
7:20
punishment for failing to meet an expectation. And what and and since I think
7:28
and and and I say expectation because I don't want to use any more thick
7:31
or morally loaded uh terms than that, is that we we typically think it's
7:40
ethical for people to ask for relief from expectations. Right. Sometimes I ask
7:46
people to let me out of the promise I make. Sometimes I ask people
7:49
for leniency, et cetera. So that I think that the major question of
7:55
conscientious objection is really how should others write? How should the part with the
8:00
expectation respond to the request right to be relieved of the expectation? And so
8:07
I think since typically employers, right can are are the ones that are in
8:11
place to enforce expectations. That raises a really uh that that raises mistakes.
8:20
That's where, really where the rubber really hits the road. Right, the
8:22
employer has to say, you've asked to be relieved of this expectation to become
8:26
vaccinated. Right, should I, as your employer, grant you, you
8:33
know, an exemption? And so I think, and then if you if
8:39
I don't grant the exemption and you still refuse to go ahead, right,
8:43
what should I do? Should I, you know, say okay, I
8:46
forgive you, or you know, I'm not going to punish you, or
8:48
should I enforce some punishment? I think that like becomes like the central question.
8:54
And so it's really a push when somebody says I'm not going to I
9:00
don't want to comply with your expectation. Should we let you out of it?
9:03
Right? And I think though that what matters in a cutting into subjection
9:09
is that the objector admits the legitimacy right of the of the expectation, right
9:15
that they say, I understand it's legitimate. There are perfectly good reasons to
9:20
to to expect this of me and to expect this of other people. But
9:22
I'm looking to be you know, exempted. And I think typically I think
9:31
we should right when people invoke conscience, right people of you know, uh
9:37
and and I'm going to take for granted that these folks are sincere right.
9:41
I think unless we can't achieve the goal, right that the expectation advances without
9:48
that person's compliance with the expectation, we should you know, let people follow
9:54
their conscience. But if the goal is sufficiently important and we can't achieve that
10:00
goal without their compliance, then we shouldn't exempt them. Now, I think,
10:07
you know, we're not going to drag people, you know, to
10:11
the vaccination clinic and stick a needle in their arm. So I think for
10:18
for health care employees, right, who say I refuse to be vaccinated,
10:22
I think the question is, you know now that the employer, I can't
10:30
you know, compel them to get vaccinated. Right? Are they going to
10:35
dock them vacation days? Right? Are they going to you know, fire
10:41
them. And I think some of those things, you know, it may
10:46
be you know, let's docu vacation days because the people who are going to
10:48
have to come in and you know, work extra time because we can't allow
10:54
you in you know, in clinical situations, maybe they get we give them
10:58
a straight recovery time after their shifts and it's made up by your you know,
11:03
lost vacation days. So I think what you know becomes clear is that
11:13
when there's an entity that has the power to enforce conscientious, enforce an expectation,
11:18
or punish you for failing to fulfill the expectation, really the question is,
11:24
right, are we justified in enforcing the expectation? And then for the
11:28
folks who don't, are we justified in imposing some sort of penalty? And
11:33
perhaps the prospect of penalty will get some people to comply. But so I
11:37
think the issue of employment is like as really a raised that increasingly conscientious objectors
11:46
may face the prospect of I don't know, being held responsible right or or
11:54
or or reliable for those objections. And I think the the objector is also
12:01
you know, seeking if you know, not exemption, then also some sort
12:05
of leniency like Paul, thank you. I mean that a tour to for
12:11
us, for any of our healthcare admission administration students, or any healthcare administrators,
12:16
heat right on the call in the kinds of things to think through when
12:20
faced with, well, our really really challenging decisions. And it's especially challenging,
12:24
it seems, for at least two reasons, very when you've sort of
12:28
laid this out beautifully. One challenge is that it's right the COVID vaccines were
12:33
new, so it's not as though even the best administrators with the best policies
12:39
could have fought in advance and tried to set up contractual obligations with employees in
12:43
such a way that this was really really clear. But I want to jump
12:50
to Kirk in a moment. But the second part, I know that's the
12:54
big one. The second one is it seems like healthcare practitioners are under special
13:01
focus. And maybe this is fair and not fair, but there's something about
13:03
the vaccine being a healthcare item for lack of a better term, right,
13:09
So I have all sorts of weird views. I think the Mets are the
13:13
best baseball team. No one's sort of coming to my door to really pay
13:16
attention to my baseball views because I'm a philosopher. But there's something about so
13:22
people have suggested, uh sort of healthcare practitioners role in healthcare and the vaccine
13:28
as an item of health ware, folks who may be expected to better understand
13:33
the best evidence. I mean, there's a lot, a lot built in
13:37
there. Any sort of quick comment before I jump to Kirk Right. So,
13:41
then, so in response to the first question about the way that we
13:46
couldn't have anticipated this requirement, right, and you said, like it wouldn't
13:50
be in a contract, right. That's one of the reasons why I frame
13:54
it in terms of expectations, right, because the contract creates like a duty
13:58
or obligation. And and I think duty is like a form of expectation that
14:05
we have of you. But it's like laid in with like moral theory.
14:11
But I think people come to have expectations of us in all sorts of different
14:16
ways that are not you know, necessarily just from promises. If I like
14:24
always shovel my elderly neighbors, you know, uh, sidewalk when it snows,
14:30
and I do it regularly all the time, she may come to have
14:33
like an expectation that that I'm going to do it. And so so one
14:39
is that I'll say that like not being able to anticipate the vaccine doesn't mean
14:43
that it's not a reasonable expectation to have that healthcare workers will take something that
14:54
will make it safer for them to treat patients and for patients to be treated
14:58
by them. And in terms of the second thing, I think, yeah,
15:05
there some people would go to the idea that healthcare workers should set an
15:11
example, that they should demonstrate that they have the confidence in the safety and
15:18
the sense of social responsibility that we expected from the expertise and social commitment of
15:28
those things. And those maybe some of the reasons that we come to form
15:33
the expectation. But uh, you know, I think I think we've seen
15:39
that it's not like always reliable to to assume that they're going to uh embody
15:46
those kinds of presumptions, and and and and sometimes you know, we have
15:52
to create demands right when when people fall short of maybe the ethical expert dictations
16:00
we have for them. Thank you, Bill, a really nice answer to
16:04
an unfairly large question. So we'll come back to this in the Q and
16:10
A. We're now going to turn into our third expert, Kirk Johnson.
16:15
Kirk, very glad you're here. It is good to see you. It's
16:21
good to be seen, as they say. Reverend doctor Kirk Johnson is of
16:27
course most famously a seat in hall alum so Go pirates. He is currently
16:32
the Assistant Professor in Justice Studies at the Great Montclair State University. So,
16:37
Kirk, I'm gonna follow up with a couple of different questions, build on
16:41
some themes Jason started in terms of religion, but also think about some institutions
16:45
that Paul had on broadening past employment and maybe coming into communities and churches.
16:51
So first question is a big one. Uh, there are and you're doing
16:56
work on this, which is why I'm asking. But there's lots of folks
16:59
who have been described as vaccine hesitant. They have concerns about taking the vaccine,
17:04
and in light of this, sometimes conscience or conscientious objection are appealed to.
17:11
However, you're doing work highlighting them. In some communities though they've been
17:15
fought to be vaccine hesitant, there's actually a vaccine access issue. So I
17:19
want to throw both of these ideas out there. Could you tell folks on
17:22
the call who may be less familiar, what's going on with vaccine hesitancy and
17:27
also what's going on with your work on vaccine access. Yeah, so,
17:33
first, thank you for having me. It's always so good to be back
17:37
and talk about such important issues. Well, first, vaccine hesitancy. Sorry,
17:53
Kerg, I think we might have accidentally lost the volume on you.
18:00
There we go, so sorry, start over. It's okay. So what
18:03
I was saying, so basically, vaccine hesitancy dominantly communities of color have a
18:08
lot to do or at least understood generally speaking as a mistrust issue that communities
18:17
of color do not trust the medical establishment, the medical institution because of the
18:23
history of race and medicine, which obviously is the case, but it's not
18:27
the only particular reason why there's hesitancy. Second, I believe, of course,
18:34
is through access right, not as much. Today you could go to
18:40
any pharmacy and get vaccinated, right, so it's it's less restrictive. But
18:48
in the earlier months of vaccination usually it's like an assembly line. You go
18:53
to a main center throughout New Jersey specifically, or wherever there are available vaccinations,
19:04
and you are generally with a lot of people does as if not hundreds
19:08
of individuals and you get vaccinated, and usually these particular places you have to
19:15
drive, right, You have to have a vehicle in order to drive,
19:19
at least that was my experience, had to go to. For example,
19:22
there was a big center in Edison, New Jersey at one point that folks
19:27
could drive to to get vaccinated. But if you don't have access to vehicle,
19:33
then how can you get vaccinated until there are other options available? Right,
19:38
And again this is in the beginning stages of when vaccines were approved and
19:44
readily available for the general public. Another issue of hesitancy is we're talking about
19:51
conscience, right, So conscious is with knowledge? Right? A lot of
19:55
one understanding is that with knowledge you make your decisions and based off of this
20:00
particular knowledge. While there's a lot of misinformation even till this day about you
20:07
know, the mRNA vaccines of maderna adviser, but also of course Johnson and
20:11
Johnson, that there are computer chips in it, that there's radiation. I
20:17
mean, the list goes on and on with a lot of false accusations are
20:22
what or what in the particular vaccine themselves? And because of this disinformation or
20:29
misinformation, that also creates hesitancy because individuals who believe in propaganda or are misinformation,
20:37
they believe it, and of course that hinders them from actually taking the
20:41
vaccines in the first place. Right. Another issue I think that is important
20:48
to talk about is the politics, unfortunately of the pandemic. And unfortunately,
20:56
from the beginning, the origins of this pandemic that we're still in unfortunately has
21:02
been politicized. Right, So it's a political statement, unfortunately. So if
21:07
you wear a mask, it's a political statement, unfortunately. So if you
21:11
get vaccinated, right, and the last time I've checked, you know,
21:15
COVID nineteen is a virus. It doesn't care if you're Democrat or Republican,
21:19
conservative or progressive or liberal. Right. A virus does what a virus does,
21:25
right, spreads to many people as possible to continue to you know,
21:29
maintain its efficacy. Right. So that is another huge elephant in a room
21:33
because of partisan politics that has in my opinion, hindered the progression or as
21:41
I should say, the alleviation of the spread of the virus. Right,
21:45
Because it's a political conscience, if you will, that that folks make their
21:51
decision and based off of their decisions off regarding vaccination. So there's many different
21:57
layers and variables that come into play for a person to be skeptical of the
22:04
vaccine but also not take the vaccine at all. And I think these different
22:10
variations are understandings of conscience right, is very important to consider in having this
22:15
conversation. Kirk, thank you, and we I mean it's tough to talk
22:22
about sort of systemic racism in medicine without mentioning your book. And I will
22:26
forget the second part of the title, Medical Stigmata Race helped me out.
22:30
Yeah, Medical Stigmata Race Medicine in the pursuit of Theological Liberation. I know
22:36
the secondary title is a little bit lengthy, so it always lives in the
22:41
end. But for folks interested in this specifically in sort of the ethical issues
22:48
with the race based medicine, this book is great, go and get it.
22:52
So thanks Kirk. This is super helpful. I mean, we have
22:56
you sort of laid out really nicely the complications involved with vaccine hesitancy, the
23:00
misinformat, like, there's so much that goes into this, as well as
23:04
access challenges within particular communities. So this is really super helpful, I know
23:11
for everyone on the call. So what I want to do now is I
23:15
want to open up because we have tons of questions coming in in the chat.
23:18
We've got questions being tweeted at us. I should have mentioned before.
23:22
You can tweet at us at Seatonhle Bioethics or extend it right to me for
23:27
the moderator's handle, it's at BCP Ethics, And you can send us emails
23:33
for questions as well, and we're always if we don't get to something,
23:36
we have a resource page which we'll send out and we're always happy to follow
23:38
up if any questions aren't answered. So I want to jump there's a few
23:45
questions coming in both in the chat, on Twitter, variety of other places,
23:48
sort of pushing conceptually which I very much appreciate, pushing conceptually on this
23:55
idea of conscientious objection and making what's the usual discussion in this area of a
24:02
comparison to military service and reasons one might not go into military service. This
24:07
sort of analogy I think was made most famous though the good bioethicis on the
24:11
Caul can correct me by that stall and the manual piece in twenty seventeen in
24:15
the New England Journal of Medicine. So I'm going to jump first to Jason
24:19
then I'll run through Jason for folks who don't like the idea of conscientious objection,
24:25
and you know, I prefer a different term for this, So I'm
24:27
with these people. Can you just say a little bit more about that and
24:30
what you think in sort of your own work on this, about whether that's
24:36
the right concept, if analogies to military service and all that fit, and
24:41
sort of how that would affect thinking going forward. Yeah. So in my
24:49
own writing pre COVID on conscience rights in healthcare, Yeah, I agree with
24:56
Stallin and Manual that the comparison of what again, it's often invoked as rights
25:03
of conscience say about healthcare providers, say not to provide abortions, or participate
25:07
in medical aid and dying or whatever else, it might be that, Yeah,
25:11
the comparison is not apt because, as they title their article, positions
25:17
not conscripts. Right. The whole point of conscious objection the military is you're
25:22
objecting to being drafted into the military. It's compulsory service in the military,
25:27
right what what? What would be the analogy which doesn't happen in the military
25:33
would be someone who voluntarily signs up for the army but then says, but
25:37
I want I want to be a no combat zone. I'm a pacifist.
25:40
I'm happy to be a nurse, or to be a medic, or to
25:44
you know work, you know, be a file clerk for a general.
25:45
But no, you don't get that choice. If you volunteer for the army,
25:49
you already puts you where the army is going to put you, right,
25:52
so you can't consciously object when you volunteer. And so the whole point
25:57
is that if you volunteered to go to this for es, Yeah, yeah,
26:02
that I mean, that's before jumping on Paul and Kirk. A quick
26:06
follow up, which is, do you have any sort of grand parenting clauses
26:11
in your views about folks who believe that the nature of health care, or
26:15
at least particular the the internal morality of particular professions within health care has changed,
26:23
and so they feel as though they volunteer for something but the nature of
26:27
the medical endeavor changed, usually right medically and dying as the example here.
26:33
Yeah, do folks get grand parented in? Or is this is that too
26:37
far a stretch? Well, again, I do defend what I called conscientious
26:41
refusals. So I do think that we ought to grant conscientious rights of conscientious
26:48
refusal. For yeah, people who who've gone to medicine expecting the practice they're
26:52
medicine in this way and then yeah, things changed nature medicine has changed pretty
26:57
rapidly, and they you'll want to object to that. But again that's still
27:02
different than the military conscientious objection because again they could always stop being stop practicing.
27:07
I mean, that's a huge ask, it's a huge ask, but
27:11
the point is they have that freedom. Where again, if you're a military
27:12
conscript, you're in until you get wounded or killed basically, or do something
27:18
else that gets you thrown out. But I clinger on that right. Well,
27:30
I was just going to say so, look, so with respect to
27:32
the mandate, like vaccine mandates and so on, that is a bit closer
27:36
to the military analogy though because it is putting again you're you're not conscripting them
27:42
to get vaccinated, so to speak, because it's Paul correctly, but mentioned
27:48
mandates are not about strapping people down and jabbing them in the arm against their
27:51
will. But it is about you will experience some sort of you know,
27:56
negative effect at the very least, maybe a reassignment of your job if you're
28:00
working in healthiert or you're not patient facing or potentially other penalties up to job
28:03
termination or student getting kicked out of school. So even so, I just
28:08
think the parallel is a little bit closer conceptually to the actual military conscientious objection.
28:17
Thanks Jason Paul, since Jason mentioned you any your thoughts on this matter,
28:21
if they different anyway, So I think the right historically the model conscientious
28:32
subjectors, Jason says, is the military conscript right, and a few years
28:37
ago, as like when I was thinking also trying to form my view about
28:41
conscientious objection. If you go into do a lit search on conscientious objection,
28:48
basically almost all of the literature, like you know, ethics literature on it
28:55
is about military service up until the sixties, when at least in the in
29:00
the English speaking literature, when the last English speaking like country abandoned conscription.
29:08
And then it starts to pick up in the context of medical providers, which
29:15
is around like the same time you know, bios is developed, and there
29:18
were these new technologies that allowed for you know, the extension of life and
29:22
and also movements around like you know, the legalization of abortion. So I
29:29
think it because I think for a lot of people had a very positive,
29:38
uh sort of argument around conscriptors. The same terminology was used. You know,
29:44
I'm not I don't necessarily think it's the same exact concept you know today,
29:51
right, And I think like Jason's right to point out that selective conscientious
29:56
objection is not permitted in military service, right, so you can't volunteer and
30:02
say I'm not going to do you know this because it goes against my personal
30:07
scruples. And I think a lot of people will want to say that's exactly
30:11
the same in medicine, right, You're a volunteer to medicine, and you
30:14
can't selectively conscientiously object to the process of medicine or the practice of medicine.
30:18
Excuse me, And I'm not sure I agree with that, Like, I
30:22
find it an attractive argument, but I think it's simplistic and it doesn't you
30:29
know, address like the ways in which the practice can change, but also
30:34
individuals consciences can change. Do they necessarily have to quit being a physician or
30:42
a nurse or you know, a PA or who have you. I'm not
30:47
convinced of that, in part because I think instances where they will say I
30:52
can't comply with this expectation maybe infrequent in their career, and I'm not necessarily
30:59
sure we want to make people pay that cost. You know, are there
31:03
smaller costs that they might be expected to pay? I might think that's fair.
31:11
Thanks well, help, and then we have our panels are also kind
31:15
enough to respond in the chat. We have a pretty active chat going on
31:19
notions of war, A listed acts and all that. And given Jason's mention
31:23
of a listen acts if you want the full view on this, and Jason
31:26
jump in and helped me before I turned to Kirk. Uh the book they
31:30
must read is Metaphysics and Bioethics. What's the rest of the title? Oh,
31:34
my book The Nature of Human Persons Metaphysics and Bioethics, which is not
31:41
at all about work just war though, but no, but that's the book
31:45
if you're thinking about, sort of in a deeply fair to say, stimistic
31:48
way about these kinds of issues. And I, yeah, I focused on
31:53
the second half of your title. I forgot the second half of Kirks.
31:56
So Kurk jump in on this anything to add to what Jason or Paul has
32:01
laid out on this one. Otherwise we'll jump to a different question. Yeah,
32:06
just a just a quick amendment, if you will. So I also
32:10
think we should really look at how individualism. We are looking at that through
32:16
conscientious objection, but how individualism could be a good thing. But in a
32:22
pandemic maybe not so much, considering you could carry a virus that could literally
32:29
exterminate or send somebody to the hospital or get them severely sick. So I
32:34
think we also should in this conversation consider at least some form of utility,
32:38
right that that you know, what is the overall good? And know this
32:43
is more going into utilitarianism and dantological ethics and all that, but also what
32:49
is better for the greater good? Right? If I could temporarily alleviate some
32:53
of my own individualism in order for the collective whole to be well long term,
33:00
is that worth considering? Right? Okay? And again that is the
33:02
question that we ought to pose ourselves. It reminds me of not even in
33:07
the Spanish flu in nineteen eighteen, but in the mid twentieth century regarding polio.
33:15
Right, I wonder if those individuals who lived at that time were at
33:20
the level of individualism that we are today, Because if they were, a
33:24
lot of us wouldn't be here, a lot of genealogies would have been stripped
33:28
because they would have refused to take a vaccine of polio that could actually prolong
33:34
generations. Right, So for me, yes, individualism is important, but
33:40
to what extent if it is to the detriment of the whole, right,
33:45
the entirety of society. So those are the things that were circulating in my
33:50
mind listening to my colleagues Paul and Jason regarding conscientious objection. So yeah,
33:58
that's what I wanted to share, Kurt, thanks very much. We're gonna
34:02
turn to a different kind of question at the moment. There's a ton going
34:07
on in the chat, even a reference to mash which I appreciated. That's
34:13
well done, old school. Yeah, yeah, yeah, But we're gonna
34:16
turn because we have another set of questions, and I will say there's a
34:20
lot that there are questions in the chat about civil disobedience and a number of
34:22
other sort of conceptual features. I would again plug Paul's work on this and
34:28
that whole issue of Healthcare Ethics Committee for him. It's worth a google.
34:30
There are articles on civil disobedience and a bunch of other topics which I think
34:35
would be helpful for all of you thinking through these ideas. I want to
34:37
jump to another question that came into the chat early, and we'll just spend
34:42
a very brief time on it because it's sort of an inside baseball question.
34:45
We're gonna throw it at Jason because it has to do with Catholic institutions.
34:52
And so somebody early on had asked about, you know, the arguments that
34:55
you've offered in terms of the conclusion of which was no Afflick also sort of
35:02
reference Catholicism as the reason and fix up my language here as to why they
35:07
won't win for a vaccine. For members of the Seaton Hall community and people
35:10
who listen to our podcast, you know, a similar view is offered by
35:14
Father Colin Kay, who runs all of mission and ministry at Seaton Hall.
35:19
So someone's asking, if that's the case, what about instances of particular parish
35:25
priests or other members of the church broadly who are supporting vaccine exemptions or writing
35:34
notes for vaccine exemptions in light of you know, a person being Catholic.
35:40
So can you help so I'm not gonna get anybody in trouble. Can you
35:45
help us think through how how this should work? Yeah, they should read
35:51
my articles. That's should work now. So I mean, so here's the
35:55
issue, right, I referenced before the you know, the Vatican, the
36:00
Congregation of Doctor and the Faith right. They put out a definitive statement in
36:06
December twenty December twenty twenty, as the vaccines are first starting to roll out,
36:10
in which they make clear that a Catholic concerned about these links to these
36:17
you know, boarded fet these more or less cell lines from a boarded fetuses,
36:22
that there are any Catholic, any person in good conscience can receive these
36:28
vaccines. Okay, yes that's a moral concern, but you can receive the
36:32
vaccine. And that's the complicated you know, moral theological, theological questions about
36:37
remote material cooperation and formal cooperation. So time to really go into But what
36:44
the CDF did not say is that every Catholic ought to be vaccinated. Right,
36:50
and now, put Francis and a couple of statements said, you know,
36:53
I think it's a moral obligation to get vaccinated. It's an act of
36:57
love, right, And for me as a Catholic, that my conscience.
37:00
I'm as a former Orthodox bioethics colleague used to call me a biopapist. When
37:08
the Pope speaks, I listen. Not that you know everything the Pope says
37:12
infallible, but I think he's right about this. But even that was not
37:15
like some sort of exca dangerous statement binding on the conscious of Catholics. So
37:20
here's what you have is you have the church, particularly in America. This
37:24
is true another place, well, but this is a very much what we're
37:27
seeing is very much in the American Catholic Church is again people having these maybe
37:34
broader political concerns, maybe being a bit overly scrupulous about this connection to abortion
37:38
despite what the CDF said, and wanting to exercise their conscience based right not
37:45
to get the vaccine, whether it's you know, again it's a sincerely held
37:49
belief about the abortion connection, or based on mistaken information, like they think
37:52
that fetuses are being aborted now to make vaccines, which is not the case.
37:57
And so but because of that, some again Catholic bishops, Catholic priests,
38:04
even in an organization like the National Catholic Bioethics Center, which if you're
38:07
not annoy abing the sound of my voice, whan I listened to it for
38:09
three hours, you can listen to a three hour podcast debate with the NCBC
38:14
on this, but the point being is that they are adopting the view of
38:20
that vaccine manage of robust religious exemptions, and yes, are providing the needs
38:23
for Catholics exercise that. It's worth noting that several prominent Catholic bishops, including
38:29
Cardinal Blaze Coopich in Chicago, Cardinal Dolan in New York, Bishop mckilroy and
38:36
San Diego, as well as some others, have explicitly instructed their priests not
38:40
to sign these exemption forms. Do not witness that to the mistaken view that
38:46
Catholics have a religious basis for a conscious objection. So this is an internal
38:52
debate among Catholics, but at least what reforms my conscious as a Catholic.
38:55
The Pope and the CDF have been very clear in this as the US Conference
39:00
of Catholic Bishops. Jason, thank you, and I think that's a really
39:04
helpful example which folks were involved in these kinds of conversations that this was helpful
39:08
for and those who may not be right. It's an excellent example we can
39:12
extrapolate from about some of the challenges in working through different kinds of inter and
39:17
intra traditional conversations about these issues, and so that's really helpful. I want
39:24
to turn to Kirk on a different question, but first just a reminder,
39:29
we do now offer CMEs for this. So we've put in the chat a
39:35
link you can click on and so please that it'll get you an evaluation form
39:39
you can fill out. Of course, state of the end, we got
39:42
about nine minutes left, and yeah, so if you're interested in cmmes,
39:46
you can get cms for this. So Kirk and I guess the second thing
39:51
is thanks to everyone who's here. These questions are phenomenal, Like the stuff
39:53
comes through the chat is heavy hitting and it's it's yeah, we're not able
39:59
to answer all of them. It's thought provoking. It's really great stuff.
40:01
So Kirk, I'm turning to you because one of the other questions coming through
40:06
in the chat has to do with the relationship between society and the healthcare establishment,
40:12
and partly due to I think some of the political interconnections that Jason was
40:17
referencing. The person to chat who mentioned I believe being a frontline physician,
40:24
I said that there's a loss of trust between folks coming in and seeking care
40:30
and those who are providing it and maybe for a variety of reasons. There's
40:35
a tough question. Anything that you see that could be done to help regain
40:39
that kind of trust. Yeah, I think first there has to be some
40:49
continuity between the health departments at the federal level and also at the local level.
40:59
I mean a more recent example, and here in New Jersey, the
41:02
CDC continues to suggest to you know, wear masks inside. We just got
41:07
a tweet from Governor Phil Murphy that they're going to loosen mass restrictions start in
41:12
March seventh. Right, So there's a lot of confusion, right, and
41:17
disjointedness regarding communication, and that definitely doesn't help the general population and trusting.
41:25
Right, when you hear one thing one month and then the next thing you
41:29
hear a completely opposite thing in the other month, it causes confusion and it
41:35
really delegitimizes what they're trying to do. Right, And of course I know
41:40
it's very difficult. There's different variants, and of course the virus continues to
41:46
shift and mutate, so you have to go by what is current. But
41:52
I think they really need to have some continuity and collectively and saying we should
42:00
keep masks or we shouldn't also regarding vaccinations as well, they should also have
42:06
continuity within that. So that's one particular piece I think that is uh effective
42:15
regarding the knowledge in the the communication aspect of of of the pandemic. So
42:24
I think if they could actually have some cohesiveness, that is a start to
42:31
gaining trust. The second is really reaching out to local leaders as well.
42:37
So of course we see commercials with doctors and all of that, which is
42:42
important, but also why not involved for those who are comfortable, you know,
42:49
religious leaders or local leaders that are concerned about the health of the fellow
42:57
population, right or the fellow society that they're responsible for in the communities that
43:02
they're responsible for. So I think that is another piece that will also help
43:08
bring some familiarity. Oh, Reverend so and so, Rabbi so and so,
43:14
emon so and so says, you know, I took the vaccine on
43:16
wearing a massive protect myself and makes it more personable and realistic as well.
43:22
So I think those are the Those are two ways that I think will at
43:27
least help alleviate some mistrust with between of course society, communities and the medical
43:34
establishment as a whole. Thick Kirk, thank you. I mean the consistency
43:38
point is, yeah, is well relaid out and well taken, and also
43:45
just highlighting the different folks in authority or who are trustworthy in different kinds of
43:49
communities. Well done. Yeah, so I I Kirk, I agree.
43:55
I think we have a you know, a vastly fragmented public health system that,
44:00
right is not coordinated state to state and even within states is uncoordinated because
44:06
we don't really have a you know, national central public health authority that all
44:09
the then subones are responsible to, and so you're going to get loads of
44:15
you know, conflicting and different reports and and you know, and depending on
44:22
you know, how they're collecting data, even like maybe pictures of like how
44:25
severe a pandemic can be. But like I want to connect that note to
44:30
your earlier point about like how we have a culture that emphasizes individualism, right,
44:37
is that public health ethics, which is sort of maybe the more recent
44:42
you know, areas of bioethics to develop, right, emphasizes other values than
44:46
individualism and talks about solidarity. And I think we don't have, like,
44:51
uh uh, at least in our discourse, a robust, you know,
44:57
understanding of public health and the kinds of com udal commitments to that that that
45:02
requires that would you know, I think create a framework or paradigm in which
45:09
to articulate the responsibility of an individual to become vaccinated against also these you know,
45:17
other qualms. So I think that that that's a huge challenge, and
45:24
I think you're right to highlight it, thank you, and to answer quickly
45:29
the question continuity or clear communication I think both in that regard, and of
45:37
course social media also is another factor, right, that's that's where most people
45:43
get their information and knowledge, and of course social media is not regulated and
45:46
it's not vetted, so that is another hinderance that we also have to deal
45:51
with in this conversation regarding UH vaccines and vaccinations. Thank you, Paul points
46:00
points. Unfortunately, though I would like to talk with you guys about this
46:02
forever, and you all know that we're running low on time, So a
46:07
reminder to click on the link put in a chat regarding CMEs and we can
46:12
get that information up. But as we close out in the last couple of
46:15
minutes, UH, just one line from each of our panelists for folks who
46:21
have come, for folks who are thinking about these issues, for folks who
46:22
live it every day, what one line would you leave them with? And
46:28
I'll start with Jason, go to Pulman and with Kirk. So Jason,
46:31
one line, what do you got one line? Very carefully inform your conscience.
46:37
We're responsible not just for acting on our conscience, but we're having a
46:40
well formed conscience. So I was good discs to Kirk's point about and Bob
46:45
where you get information from and so on. Yeah, excellent, Thank you
46:50
very much. Paul. One line. I think my what I would encourage
46:55
people to just to think about is that for sincere counciines, just rit you
47:00
have to recognize the validity expectation. And that's a real attempt to balance here
47:07
between attempts to allow people to follow their conscience but also to meet legitimate goals
47:14
that we have for living together. Thank you, Paul, well said,
47:19
and Kirk wrap us up. Yeah, I think in this conversation we have
47:23
to realize that it's not about me, but also about we, about the
47:28
collective good as a whole. And I always suggest you know, based,
47:32
you know, get to information, get your facts. But if you haven't
47:36
been vaccinated, you know, have that conversation, shake out that information,
47:40
make that conscience's decision, like my colleague Jason said, and protect yourselves and
47:46
of course the loved ones and friends and family around you. Thank you for
47:59
listening to this episode of the covid Ethics series podcast. Be sure to check
48:02
out video versions of our episodes online at library shoot dot edu slash covid ethics,
48:10
follow the show on Twitter at Shoe Bioethics, and our moderator me at
48:15
bcp ethics. And if you're listening to this show on iTunes, Spotify,
48:20
or wherever you get your podcasts, please subscribe and leave a review. If
48:25
there's a topic you'd like to see discussed in the future, let us know