When I use a word . . . . No jab, no job? A benefit:harm balance analysis

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions..

The current debate about whether individuals should be entitled to work in the healthcare sector if they decline to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV2 has been largely informed by personal opinions and argument by analogy. A benefit:harm balance analysis suggests that while vaccination has a highly favourable benefit:harm balance, the balance in instituting a "no jab, no job" policy is highly uncertain and may be unfavourable. Furthermore, there are practical difficulties and legal uncertainties. The much misunderstood precautionary principle dictates that if the benefit:harm balance of an intervention is unclear and may be unfavourable, the intervention should not be undertaken. Furthermore, the onus is on those who believe that the benefit:harm balance will be favourable to prove that it is so; it is not for the sceptics to prove that it isn't. In the absence of good evidence in favour, this is an intervention that would be best avoided.

Medienart:

E-Artikel

Erscheinungsjahr:

2021

Erschienen:

2021

Enthalten in:

Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:375

Enthalten in:

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) - 375(2021) vom: 26. Nov., Seite n2934

Sprache:

Englisch

Beteiligte Personen:

Aronson, Jeffrey K [VerfasserIn]

Links:

Volltext

Themen:

COVID-19 Vaccines
Editorial

Anmerkungen:

Date Completed 08.12.2021

Date Revised 02.09.2022

published: Electronic

Citation Status MEDLINE

doi:

10.1136/bmj.n2934

funding:

Förderinstitution / Projekttitel:

PPN (Katalog-ID):

NLM333740084