vaccine argumentative essay outline

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

The Benefits of Vaccinations

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Introduction

Preview of main points:.

Summary of main points:

Closing comments:, visual aid rationale, visual aid script, scripted audience questions.

The Benefits of Vaccinations. (2016, Apr 10). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/the-benefits-of-vaccinations-essay

"The Benefits of Vaccinations." StudyMoose , 10 Apr 2016, https://studymoose.com/the-benefits-of-vaccinations-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). The Benefits of Vaccinations . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/the-benefits-of-vaccinations-essay [Accessed: 27 Sep. 2024]

"The Benefits of Vaccinations." StudyMoose, Apr 10, 2016. Accessed September 27, 2024. https://studymoose.com/the-benefits-of-vaccinations-essay

"The Benefits of Vaccinations," StudyMoose , 10-Apr-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/the-benefits-of-vaccinations-essay. [Accessed: 27-Sep-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). The Benefits of Vaccinations . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/the-benefits-of-vaccinations-essay [Accessed: 27-Sep-2024]

• Should Vaccinations Be Required for Public School Students? Pages: 2 (563 words)
• Benefits and limitations of airport security scanners Pages: 4 (928 words)
• Understanding the Motives and Benefits of Volunteer Vacationers Pages: 29 (8651 words)
• Benefits of Hosting Major Sporting Events Pages: 6 (1643 words)
• Compensation and Benefits Strategies Pages: 6 (1519 words)
• Benefits of playing chess Pages: 4 (919 words)
• Compensation and Benefits Recommendations Pages: 6 (1770 words)
• Benefits of Recycling Pages: 6 (1673 words)
• Benefits of Youth Sports Pages: 5 (1323 words)
• Multiculturalism In Canada: The benefits of a multicultural society Pages: 7 (1864 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

Questions? Call us: 

Email: 

• How it works
• Testimonials

Essay Writing

• Essay service
• Essay writers
• College essay service
• Write my essay
• Pay for essay
• Essay topics

Term Paper Writing

• Term paper service
• Buy term papers
• Term paper help
• Term paper writers
• College term papers
• Write my term paper
• Pay for term paper
• Term paper topic

Research Paper Writing

• Research paper service
• Buy research paper
• Research paper help
• Research paper writers
• College research papers
• Write my research paper
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper topics

Dissertation Writing

• Dissertation service
• Buy dissertation
• Dissertation help
• Dissertation writers
• College thesis
• Write my dissertation
• Pay for dissertation
• Dissertation topics

Other Services

• Custom writing services
• Speech writing service
• Movie review writing
• Editing service
• Assignment writing
• Article writing service
• Book report writing
• Book review writing

Popular request:

How to write a vaccination research paper fast.

March 25, 2021

If you have just received your first vaccination research paper assignment, you probably don’t know what to do or where to start. This is probably why you are reading this blog, after all. Every semester, we receive hundreds of pleas for help from students in high school and college. They are struggling with writing an excellent vaccination research paper. In fact, many of these students are worrying that they might fail the class unless they get a top grade on their essay.

This is why we have decided to write this article. You will find information on how to write a paper about vaccination research. You will also get a list of interesting topics that should work great in 2022 (we also have COVID-19 vaccine topics there). Last, but not least, we will show you how to get a great example and give you a quick guide for writing a five-paragraph essay about vaccines.

Some Excellent Vaccination Research Topics

The best vaccination research paper outline, getting an example for your vaccine research paper, quick guide to write a vaccination paper, need more help.

Before you even start doing any research on vaccination, you should pick the topic of your paper. Truth be told, over 50% of all students pick the wrong topic. The problem is that you will most likely be tempted to choose a topic that’s very popular. The downside to this is that these same topics have probably already been chosen by some of your classmates. To make sure your paper is worthy of a top grade (and to make sure it stands out from the crowd), you need to find an original topic. The topic shouldn’t be too general, nor should it be too narrow. It should be about something of interest today. Also, you must find a topic that you have plenty of information about (to avoid spending days upon days writing the essay). To help you out, we have put together a short list of vaccination research topics:

• The history of the vaccine
• Are vaccines 100% effective?
• Common side effects of Covid vaccination
• Natural immunity versus vaccine immunity
• Mandatory Covid vaccination
• The impact of vaccination
• How does a vaccine work?
• Discuss the HPV vaccine
• Write a vaccination position paper on influenza
• Vaccination in African countries
• ARN-based vaccines
• The evolution of vaccination for Covid 19
• Arguments against vaccination
• Latest Ebola vaccination research
• Arguments for vaccination
• Should vaccination be mandatory for children?
• Discussing the anti-vaccination stance
• The effects of multiple vaccines
• Links between Polio vaccines and the development of cancer
• Do vaccines cause Autism?
• Is vaccination research bad?

Check out our nursing research topics . You’ll surely like them.

Now that you have some interesting vaccination research paper topics to pick from, it’s time to talk about the vaccination research paper outline. It is very important to know how to structure your paper properly. The truth is that failing to do so will get you penalized quite badly. Let’s discuss the proper vaccine research paper outline in just two minutes

No matter what topic you choose (including coronavirus vaccination), you can safely use the five paragraph essay. Here is how such an essay would look like:

• An introduction – first paragraph.
• Body paragraph – second paragraph
• Body paragraph – third paragraph
• Body paragraph – fourth paragraph
• A conclusion – fifth paragraph

It is definitely not difficult to write such a paper. However, we will provide you with a quick guide shortly. But first, let’s talk about getting you a good example; an example you can follow.

Let’s face it: finding good examples for a vaccine research paper can be difficult. Nowadays, the Internet is full of useless or poorly written content. In other words, you simply cannot trust anything you find online. Yes, it’s true that you may get a few hints on some website. Maybe get some interesting tips and ideas from online forums or blogs. However you will not be able to get a perfect example simply by searching on Google for it.

And no, reading vaccination research articles is not enough. You need a great example; an example you can actually use. The best way to get such a sample is to get in touch with us. Our professional academic writers can write a sample for you in no time. And the best part is that the example will be written from scratch just for you. We can even write an example paper about the vaccine for coronavirus, if you need one. You can, of course, use some parts of our sample in your own essay. After all, our sample will be 100 percent original.

It’s not enough to research a certain vaccination research term or to watch a few videos on YouTube. Writing an academic paper about vaccination can take days, even weeks if you don’t have anyone to help you. To make things a bit easier for you, we have put together a quick guide that you should follow. It outlines the basic steps you need to take to write the paper in record time. Here goes:

• The first part of your paper is the introduction . In this section, you will have to provide a bit of background information about the topic. If you are talking about the coronavirus vaccine, it’s a great idea to talk about how it appeared, where it appeared, and what its peculiarities are. Also, remember to include the thesis statement towards the beginning of the intro.
• Write three body paragraphs . Of course, you can write more, but 3 is the minimum for the five paragraph essay. Each body paragraph in your vaccination paper will discuss one single main idea or talking point. It’s a good idea to begin the paragraph with the statement and then use the rest of the paragraph to support it. Don’t forget to cite and reference works or students you use to support the statement.
• Write a conclusion . This conclusion is the part where you basically wrap everything up and write the call to action. Provide a short summary of the most important ideas and show your readers how your research or analysis supports your thesis statement. If you want to include a call to action (for example, “my research shows that more research is needed to establish the exact cause of side effects A, B and C”), do so at the end of the conclusion.
• Edit your vaccination essay . It’s very important to make sure that it is written logically and that the information is presented in an unbiased, objective way. Also, make sure you use connector sentences to transition from one paragraph to the next.
• Proofread and then proofread some more . Did you know that over 80% of students lose points due to minor mistakes, grammar errors or simple typos? Why would you want to lose points when it takes you just 10 minutes to proofread your work?

We realize that writing a vaccination argumentative essay is not easy. We know that even finding a great topic can take hours of research. And the sad truth is that most students simply can’t rely on their professors for clarifications or any kind of help. Professors are too busy, so don’t expect any help. The great news is that our professional writer service with seasoned ENL writers, professional editors and expert proofreaders can help you with anything you need. Here are some examples of what we do for students each and every day:

• Our writers can write a vaccination research paper in no time, even overnight. Instead of submitting the essay late and getting penalized, get in touch with us.
• We can create a vaccination research paper outline for you, so all you have left to do is fill each section with great content.
• Our experts can put together a new list of vaccination research paper topics just for you. This means you can pick any topic you like, knowing it will be unique.
• We can edit and proofread your essay. In fact, our editors and proofreaders have extensive experience proofing academic papers about vaccination.
• We can put you in touch with a medical expert, in case you need in-depth, well-researched medical information. It can make the difference between a B and an A+.
• We can write you a paper about the coronavirus vaccine. Our experts are up to date with the latest news and information about the COVID-19 virus.
• You can get tips and advice on how to improve your academic writing skills. One of our professional writers can take a look at your paper and suggest some improvements.

Bottom line, if you are tasked with writing a vaccine research paper and want to make sure your essay is worthy of a top grade, you should get assistance from a team of experts. We are here to help at any time of day or night. Get in touch with us now!

Take a break from writing.

Top academic experts are here for you.

• How To Write An Autobiography Guideline And Useful Advice
• 182 Best Classification Essay Topics To Learn And Write About
• How To Manage Stress In College: Top Practical Tips  
• How To Write A Narrative Essay: Definition, Tips, And A Step-by-Step Guide
• How To Write Article Review Like Professional
• Great Problem Solution Essay Topics
• Creating Best Stanford Roommate Essay
• Costco Essay – Best Writing Guide
• How To Quote A Dialogue
• Wonderful Expository Essay Topics
• Research Paper Topics For 2020
• Interesting Persuasive Essay Topics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

An Ethical Anaylsis of the Arguments Both For and Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers

Since the development of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved vaccine for the prevention of serious disease and death associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, health care workers have been expected to comply with mandatory immunization requirements or face potential termination of employment and censure by their state medical boards. Although most accepted this mandate, there have been several who have felt this was an unnecessary intrusion and violation of their right to choose their own health care mitigation strategies, or an infringement on their autonomy and other civil liberties. Others have argued that being a health care professional places your duties above your own self-interests, so-called fiduciary duties. As a result of these duties, there is an expected obligation to do the best action to achieve the “most good” for society. A so-called “utilitarian argument.”

We explore arguments both for and against these mandatory vaccine requirements and conclude using duty- and consequence-based moral reasoning to weigh the merits of each.

Conclusions

Although arguments for and against vaccine mandates are compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's personal liberties.

Introduction

The introduction of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers has caused debate and disruption in hospitals across the world, as well as within the United States. Several arguments have been made for and against the mandates, although mostly in political and social media. As the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM), we are entrusted to guide the Academy and its members, and hopefully the entire emergency medicine (EM) community, regarding ethical matters affecting all facets of emergency care. COVID-19 quickly became a polarizing public health crisis, affecting people of all educational, socioeconomic, political, religious, and demographic backgrounds. COVID-19 greatly impacted emergency departments (EDs), which are often front and center to issues related to not only disease and its manifestations, but to the effects of vaccine mandates on health care professionals. As an ethics committee, we focus our arguments solely on ethics and do not debate the safety or efficacy of vaccines. The Ethics Committee accepts that these vaccines were recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and are U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved, and proceed with the assumption that these vaccines meet safety requirements ( 1 ). We will also not debate the role of immunity from prior COVID-19 infection as being equivalent to the vaccine, as study on the equivalency is still ongoing at the time of writing this article. We will also avoid religious and legal arguments (except to mention one precedent case on public health law and vaccine mandates, which was based on a utilitarian ethical principle). Similarly, we will avoid discussion of religious or medical exemptions that may legitimately prevent receiving the vaccine. We present the arguments both for and against vaccine mandates and weigh the substantive arguments made by two panels of members, representing arguments “for” (M.M., B.W., A.U., E.S.) and “against” (L.D., R.B., D.F., A.G.) mandates. A.G. examined each of the arguments for their ethical soundness and, using principles of moral reasoning invoking deontology and consequentialism, concluded with the recommended moral position.

Of note, we use the term health care workers to include a physician-led team that may consist of any combination of residents, fellows, medical students, nurses, advanced practice providers, and health care assistants and technologists. It is not enough to focus on one out of this diverse group. As a physician-led group, it is the position of AAEM and most physician societies that medical care is best led by a board-certified physician, who also ensures the professional ethics guiding their practice are exhibited in each team member.

Arguments in Favor of Vaccine Mandates

Historically, vaccine mandates have been part of the protections under public health laws of many nations of the world. As far back as 1807, the German state of Bavaria introduced a mandate for vaccination of the public after development of the smallpox vaccine ( 2 ). In the 1905 Jacobson vs. Massachusetts decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state vaccine mandates were legal and enforceable to protect public health ( 3 ). Although in recent years there have been controversies regarding mandatory vaccination for schoolchildren, in large part these vaccination mandates have continued yearly without public debate. Generally speaking, and using the principle of acceptability, most members of the public have long accepted the role vaccines play in protecting their health and the health of those around them. There are many definitions of acceptability in ethics, however, we find most illustrative the following: “Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention” ( 4 ).

The initial argument in support of the COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers must start with the principle of justice and consistency and their related ethical concepts that support fair and equitable treatment of individuals. Although justice is typically viewed through a patient-centric lens, it is reasonable to expect that health care workers not only treat their patients justly, but be treated and act justly and consistent with their professional ethics. Justice is defined as “fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment of persons” ( 5 ). There is a further implied principle within justice, that is, consistency. It is impossible to be just yet inconsistent. Just policies, even with caveats and exceptions, must be reproducible and consistent, otherwise they will not withstand scrutiny by society and, as a result, will not be ethical. A policy is just if it is fair, and the policy to mandate that health care workers receive the COVID-19 vaccine is fair, equitable, and appropriate, as it seeks to provide a means to distribute a necessary treatment without discrimination or bias and its benefits far outweigh any risks.

For the last half century, health care workers had generally accepted, as part of the requirements for obtaining hospital privileges, the role of mandatory vaccines for their and society's good. It is reasonable and expected then to mandate additional vaccines, as diseases become prevalent and vaccines are discovered, with the same intent to provide protection to health care workers and their patients. Prior to March 2020, proof of certain mandatory vaccinations, such as hepatitis B, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella, and other childhood vaccinations (or proof of immunity) was an accepted norm in the process of starting clinical work in most clinical settings in the United States ( 6 ). When the COVID-19 vaccination became available, given the similar public health protection that the vaccination provided for this disease, it is reasonable and not an unusual or unfair burden on health care workers to add one more vaccine to the multitude they are required to get in order to provide clinical care. As stated in the first principle of AAEM's Principles of Ethics, there is a fiduciary duty by physicians to place the patient's interests above their own ( 7 ). In keeping with this principle, it is hard to conceive that refusing to protect oneself from severe disease from COVID-19, as well as the reported decreased rate of viral transmission and hence disease in vaccinated persons compared with the unvaccinated, is consistent with placing the interests of patients above health care workers ( 8 ).

One of the core tenets of medical ethics is the principle of nonmaleficence. This is best described as our unique duty to “do no harm,” as described in the Hippocratic Oath, which states physicians must “act in a way which does no harm” ( 9 ). Given the data that suggest even with the most recent highly virulent and contagious mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there is a decreased risk of transmission from vaccinated individuals, hence vaccinated health care workers uphold their duty of nonmaleficence to their patients. In contrast, remaining unvaccinated potentially exposes highly vulnerable patients and coworkers to the virus and potentially COVID-19. In addition, a health care worker who is unavailable due to COVID-19 and who is unvaccinated unfairly shifts more work burden on to their vaccinated coworkers and reduces the pool of health care workers available to society, which is worse during a pandemic.

Given the trust that society has in the medical profession, and the resultant duty that health care workers owe to society, ensuring wellness both physically and emotionally is integral in providing ethically based care. Health care workers aim not just to avoid causing harm to patients, but to ensure good. Beneficence , another throwback to the Hippocratic Oath, is defined as “an act of charity, mercy, and kindness with a strong connotation of doing good to others including moral obligation. All professionals have the foundational moral imperative of doing right. In the context of the professional–client relationship, the professional is obligated to, always and without exception, favor the well-being and interest of the client” ( 10 ). This definition is especially helpful in reiterating the fiduciary responsibility health care workers have to their patients and the need to ensure they are willing and able to provide ethical care, which implies having not only the technical and experiential knowledge, but the appropriate state of mind and physical well-being. A sick health care worker diminishes the potency of the physician–patient relationship.

As alluded to earlier, public health ethics, policy, and law have generally been structured around the utilitarian principle of doing the best for the most ( 11 ). Its underlying theme is to maximize the good in society to the benefit of the most members of that society. It acknowledges that there are certain segments of the society in which individual liberties may be affected to protect the welfare of other members, but it is felt to be just and appropriate ethically for the greater good of society. Like all other vaccines mandated to attend school or for employment in a health care facility in the United States, once the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the FDA, its role in risk-mitigating the serious sequela of COVID-19 was sufficient justification to mandate that all health care workers add this vaccine to the list of mandatory vaccines, thereby ensuring protection for the vulnerable who seek medical care ( 12 ). Serving as a mini-cosmos of society, vaccine mandates for health care workers ensure that the greatest utility (i.e., protection from COVID-19) is achieved.

Argument against Vaccine Mandates

Utilitarianism appeals to us during times of crisis. It offers an enticing solution: do the greatest good, to the greatest number of people. However, the pursuit of utilitarian ideals often challenges the rights of the individual. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the utilitarian argument has been applied to vaccine mandates.

Why is vaccination a moral issue? The decision to become vaccinated and the prevention of harm fulfills the first categorical imperative and it also has the appeal of prudence. Vaccine mandates risk treating individuals as a means to an end and risk running afoul of the second categorical imperative. Utilitarian advocates would argue for a vaccine mandate as it provides the greatest well-being for the most people possible. The utilitarian argument that vaccine mandates are doing the best for the most falls flat when taking into consideration that a vaccine for the seasonal influenza virus (flu), for example, is available and, although required by many health care facilities, it is not mandated, as there is a workaround for those who refuse it. Using the principle of consistency to ensure like circumstances are treated similarly: if utilitarianism was to be the underpinning of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, one would expect that the flu vaccine would also be mandated, as its impact on the health care field is just as large as SARS-CoV-2, yet only four states require it ( 13 ). Furthermore, individuals who choose not to receive an influenza vaccine are not harassed, stigmatized, or threatened with termination of their job, but are allowed to seek exemptions or are required to mask for the entirety of the flu season. Consistency is key in ethical principles and consistency in this utilitarian argument seems to be lacking.

To the “pro” argument on acceptability, we must disagree. It requires very little formal research to establish that many things deemed absolutely correct 100 years ago may not be acceptable today. Society only questions the “status quo” when enough individuals refuse to follow it, or when advances in science or other studies elevate our collective knowledge. There are, and have been, many “accepted” practices that are not fair, equitable, just, or ethical, and hence acceptability as a criterion lacks merits. Likewise, we must question the “fiduciary” argument that blindly mandates physician wellness and interests below that of their patients. Moral injury, burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, for example, are all concepts permeating the medical (especially EM) literature, and are directly related to the work environment of medicine. Although it is important in general terms to hold the patient's medical interests over one's own, does this require self-sacrifice in order to uphold the Hippocratic Oath? Are we, as health care workers, now enslaved to the profession without any rights of our own? We are entrusted with great responsibility and trust by society and have access to the greatest bodies of knowledge, yet as subject matter experts we are not afforded the same “right to refuse” as any other autonomous agent in the free world. For that, we call foul.

It is our position that Kantian ethics provide a solution to this dilemma and address both the concerns of individual rights and society at large. Kant's moral theory describes individuals as having intrinsic worth as autonomous, rational agents. He describes a concept of “good will” in which people have the capacity to recognize a moral act and the duty to act on it. This is an ongoing, conscious process ( 14 ). In contrast, utilitarianism would view the intrinsic value of individual choice in its effects. In Jeremy Bentham's interpretation, this was hedonism: the degree of how much pleasure could be caused or pain avoided ( 15 , 16 ). Other philosophers view the ideal outcomes of personal decisions as well-being. For the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, decisions or rules were also viewed as moral to the degree in which they benefited the majority ( 17 ).

Central to Kant's work were his categorical imperatives, that is, moral laws applicable to all individuals ( 14 ). These are laws freely accessible to individuals using reason and intellect and apply to all equally. The first principle described the concept of universalizability; a moral actor considers the principle underlying their personal decisions and the effect if all other individuals acted in a similar manner. The second principle emphasizes that humanity should be an end in itself, and never a means to an end. As human beings are rational and autonomous, we can set our own goals; humans exist for themselves and are morally self-governed.

It is important to note that Kant thought that decisions could be divided into those that were prudent and those that were ethical ( 14 ). Often, these categories coincide. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a wide range of public health decisions made with the intent of limiting morbidity and mortality. Masking, travel restrictions, and quarantining after exposure fall into both categories. A prudent individual, concerned about their own health and considering their duty to preserve both their own health and that of their peers would reasonably adopt these measures to preserve their own health and longevity as well as that of their peers.

Kantian philosophers must argue against these mandates, as it is the individual's duty to identify the moral good offered by these vaccines and take the appropriate action. Compelling action and violating personal autonomy to reach the so-called, “herd immunity” would be a moral evil.

To this dilemma, we offer a solution. We have seen the public's trust in clinicians and the medical establishment erode throughout this pandemic, as people chafe against changing mandates and norms. The evidence we have of the benefit of the vaccines for our patients is clear; it is both a prudent and moral decision. But it is a personal decision based on moral duty. Physicians must continue to educate and guide to moral clarity. To do anything else is to treat our patients as a means to an end.

We have presented ethical arguments both for and against a mandate for health care workers to receive vaccination against COVID-19. A key argument for vaccine mandates rests on the ethical requirements for health care workers to place the well-being of the community as a whole above their own individual interests. Whereas, the key arguments against mandates state that an individual's autonomy must be primary, and that autonomy should not be overridden or ignored in the name of a “higher” good.

Both arguments being compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of AAEM that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's personal liberties. This opinion rests on the following key conditions: the risks of the disease are significant to society as a whole, the vaccine has been FDA-approved (which implies thoroughly tested and deemed “safe”), and there are exceptions for those with legitimate medical or religious reasons. Vaccine mandates are consistent with professional ethics and fiduciary duties to patients. Society's interest should be held as primary over individual interests, especially as it concerns an action that is consistent and congruent with actions in our well established and accepted practice of medicine. That said, as we see a shift from pandemic to endemic status, and the research grows on natural vs. obtained immunity, there may be a shift in this opinion over time on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the AAEM Ethics Committee for their assistance in providing critical feedback on this manuscript.

Lessons learned: What makes vaccine messages persuasive

You’re reading Lessons Learned, which distills practical takeaways from standout campaigns and peer-reviewed research in health and science communication. Want more Lessons Learned?  Subscribe to our Call to Action newsletter .

Vaccine hesitancy threatened public health’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists at the University of Maryland recently reviewed 47 randomized controlled trials to determine how COVID-19 communications persuaded—or failed to persuade—people to take the vaccine. ( Health Communication , 2023  DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2023.2218145 ).

What they learned:  Simply communicating about the vaccine’s safety or efficacy persuaded people to get vaccinated. Urging people to follow the lead of others, by highlighting how many millions were already vaccinated or even trying to induce embarrassment, was also persuasive.

Why it matters:  Understanding which message strategies are likely to be persuasive is crucial.

➡️ Idea worth stealing:  The authors found that a message’s source didn’t significantly influence its persuasiveness. But messages were more persuasive when source and receivers shared an identity, such as political affiliation.

What to watch:  How other formats, such as interactive chatbots and videos, might influence persuasiveness. And whether message tailoring could persuade specific population subgroups.

News from the School

Nurturing student entrepreneurs

40 years after Bhopal disaster, suffering continues

Meet the Dean

Making health care more affordable

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• JME Commentaries
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 47, Issue 2
• Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-6403 Julian Savulescu 1 , 2 , 3
• 1 Faculty of Philosophy , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK
• 2 Murdoch Childrens Research Institute , Parkville , Victoria , Australia
• 3 Melbourne Law School , University of Melbourne , Melbourne , Victoria , Australia
• Correspondence to Professor Julian Savulescu, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; julian.savulescu{at}philosophy.ox.ac.uk

Mandatory vaccination, including for COVID-19, can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for non-compliance are proportionate. I describe an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination. Penalties or costs could include withholding of benefits, imposition of fines, provision of community service or loss of freedoms. I argue that under conditions of risk or perceived risk of a novel vaccination, a system of payment for risk in vaccination may be superior. I defend a payment model against various objections, including that it constitutes coercion and undermines solidarity. I argue that payment can be in cash or in kind, and opportunity for altruistic vaccinations can be preserved by offering people who have been vaccinated the opportunity to donate any cash payment back to the health service.

• behaviour modification
• technology/risk assessment
• philosophical ethics
• public health ethics

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106821

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

We are in the midst of a global pandemic with COVID-19 and there is a race to develop a vaccine. At the time of writing, there are 53 vaccines in clinical trials on humans (plus five that have bypassed the full trial process) and at least 92 preclinical vaccines under active investigation in animals. There are a number of different approaches: (1) genetic—using mRNA to cause the body to produce viral proteins; (2) viral vector—using genetically modified viruses such as adenovirus to carry sections of coronavirus genetic material; (3) protein—delivering viral proteins (but not genetic material) to provoke an immune response; (4) inactivated or attenuated coronavirus; (5) repurposing existing vaccines, eg, BCG (bacillus Calmette–Guérin). 1

Given the mounting number of deaths globally, and the apparent failure of many countries to contain the pandemic without severely damaging or problematic lockdowns and other measures, there have been calls to make a vaccine, if it were approved, mandatory. 2 Mandatory vaccination has not been ruled out within the UK. 3

The first part of this article asks when, if ever, a vaccine should be mandatory. I will create a set of criteria and a decision algorithm for mandatory vaccination. I will argue that in the case of COVID-19, some of these criteria may not be satisfied. The second part of the article argues that in the case of COVID-19, it may be ethically preferable to incentivise vaccine uptake. I will justify incentivisation and discuss different kinds of incentives.

Ethics of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination

There is a large body of literature on the justification for the use of coercion in public health and infectious disease in particular. Mandatory vaccination is typically justified on Millian grounds: harm to others. According to John Stuart Mill, the sole ground for the use of state coercion (and restriction of liberty) is when one individual risks harming others. 4 The most prominent arguments from bioethicists appeal to preventing harm to others. 5–7 In the case of children, significant risk of harm to the child is also a ground for state protection. Bambery et al 8 give the example of a child taking a box of toxic bleach to school, potentially harming himself and other children. Teachers are entitled to restrain the child and remove the poison both because of risk to the child and to other children. 8 Flanigan uses a similar example of a person shooting a gun into a crowd. 5

The Nuffield Council of Bioethics produced an influential report on public health which considers when coercion and mandatory vaccination might be justified:

When assessing whether more directive policies are acceptable, the following factors should be taken into account: the risks associated with the vaccination and with the disease itself, and the seriousness of the threat of the disease to the population. In the case of incentivised policies, the size of the incentive involved should be appropriate so that it would not unduly compromise the voluntariness of consent. We identified two circumstances in which quasi-mandatory vaccination measures are more likely to be justified. First, for highly contagious and serious diseases, for example with characteristics similar to smallpox. Second, for disease eradication if the disease is serious and if eradication is within reach. 9

I will elaborate on these brief suggestions and provide a novel structured algorithm for when vaccination should be mandatory.

COVID-19 is almost unique because of the gravity of the problem at the global level: not only is there cost in terms of lives from COVID-19, there is also the extraordinary economic, health and well-being consequences of various virus-control measures, including lockdown, which will extend into the future. Probably never before has a vaccine been developed so rapidly and the pressure to use it so great, at least at the global level.

There is a strong case for making any vaccination mandatory (or compulsory) if four conditions are met:

There is a grave threat to public health

The vaccine is safe and effective

Mandatory vaccination has a superior cost/benefit profile compared with other alternatives

The level of coercion is proportionate.

Each of these conditions involves value judgements.

Grave threat to public health

So far, there have been over 1 million deaths attributed to COVID-19 globally (as of 30 September 2020). 10 In the UK alone, it was predicted in influential early modelling that 500 000 would have died if nothing was done to prevent its spread. Even with the subsequent introduction of a range of highly restrictive lockdown measures (measures which could themselves come at a cost of 200 000 non-COVID-19 lives according to a recent UK government report), 11 more than 42 000 (as of 30 September 2020) 12 have died in the UK within 28 days of a positive test.

The case fatality rate was originally estimated to be as high as 11%, but (as is typical with new diseases) this was quickly scaled down to 1.5% or even lower. 13 The infection fatality rate (IFR, which accounts for asymptomatic and undiagnosed cases) is lower still as it has become clear that there are a large number of asymptomatic and mild cases. For example, the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine reports that “In Iceland, where the most testing per capita has occurred, the IFR lies somewhere between 0.03% and 0.28%”. 14

Of course, how you define “grave” is a value judgement. One of the worst-affected countries in the world in terms of COVID-19-attributed deaths per million is Belgium. The mortality is (at the time of writing) around 877 per million population, which is still under 0.1%, and the average age of death is 80. Of course, Belgium and most other countries have taken strict measures to control the virus and so we are not seeing the greatest possible impact the virus could have. Yet others such as Brazil and Sweden have intervened to a much lesser degree, yet (currently) have rates of 687 and 578 deaths per million respectively. Sweden’s April all-cause deaths and death rate at the peak of its pandemic so far, while extremely high, were surpassed by months in 1993 and 2000. 15

The data are complex and difficult to compare with different testing rates, and ways of assigning deaths and collecting data differing from country to country. For example, Belgium counts deaths in care homes where there is a suspicion that COVID-19 was the cause (without the need for a positive test) and, until recently, the UK counted a death which followed any time from a COVID-19 positive test as a COVID-19 death. Moreover, there have been huge behavioural changes even in countries without legally enforced lockdowns. Furthermore, the IFR varies wildly by age-group and other factors. Even among survivors, there is emerging evidence that there may be long-term consequences for those who have been infected but survived. Long COVID-19 health implications may present a grave future public health problem. Nevertheless, some might still argue that this disease has not entered the “grave” range that would warrant mandatory vaccination. The Spanish influenza killed many more (50–100 million), 16 and it afflicted younger rather than older people, meaning even more “life years” were lost. It is not difficult to imagine a Superflu, or bioengineered bug, which killed 10% across all ages. This would certainly be a grave public health emergency where it is likely mandatory vaccination would be employed.

Deciding whether COVID-19 is sufficiently grave requires both more data than we have and also a value judgement over the gravity that would warrant this kind of intervention. But let us grant for the sake of argument that COVID-19 is a grave public health emergency.

Vaccine is safe and effective

There are concerns that testing has been rushed and the vaccine may not be safe or effective. 17

First, although the technology being used in many of these vaccine candidates has been successfully used in other vaccines, no country has ever produced a safe and effective vaccine against a coronavirus. So in one way, we are all in uncharted waters.

Second, any vaccine development will be accelerated in the context of a grave public health emergency.The inherent probabilistic nature of the development of any biologic means that no vaccine could be said to be 100% safe. There will be risks and those risks are likely to be greater than with well-established vaccines.

Thirdly, some side effects may take time to manifest.

This is not to support the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccines are one of the greatest medical accomplishments and a cornerstone of public health. There are robust testing procedures in place in most jurisdictions to ensure that licensed COVID-19 vaccines are both effective and safe. It is only to acknowledge that everything, including vaccination, has risks. Perhaps the biggest challenge in the development of a vaccine for COVID-19 will be to be honest about the extent of those risks and convey the limitations of confidence in safety and efficacy relative to the evidence accrued.

There is an ethical balance to be struck: introducing a vaccine early and saving more lives from COVID-19, but risking side effects or ineffectiveness versus engaging in longer and more rigorous testing, and having more confidence in safety and efficacy, but more people dying of COVID-19 while such testing occurs. There is no magic answer and, given the economic, social and health catastrophe of various anti-COVID-19 measures such as lockdown, there will be considerable pressure to introduce a vaccine earlier.

To be maximally effective, particularly in protecting the most vulnerable in the population, vaccination would need to achieve herd immunity (the exact percentage of the population that would need to be immune for herd immunity to be reached depends on various factors, but current estimates range up to 82% of the population). 18

There are huge logistical issues around finding a vaccine, proving it to be safe, and then producing and administering it to the world’s population. Even if those issues are resolved, the pandemic has come at a time where there is another growing problem in public health: vaccine hesitancy.

US polls “suggest only 3 in 4 people would get vaccinated if a COVID-19 vaccine were available, and only 30% would want to receive the vaccine soon after it becomes available.” 18

Indeed, vaccine refusal appears to be going up. A recent Pew survey suggested 49% of adults in the USA would refuse a COVID-19 vaccine in September 2020. 19

If these results prove accurate then even if a safe and effective vaccine is produced, at best, herd immunity will be significantly delayed by vaccine hesitancy at a cost both to lives and to the resumption of normal life, and at worst, it may never be achieved.

There remain some community concerns about the safety of all pre-existing vaccines, including many that have been rigorously tested and employed for years.

In the case of COVID-19, the hesitancy may be exacerbated by the accelerated testing and approval process which applies not only to Sputnik V (the controversial “Russian vaccine”). Speaking about America’s vaccine programme, Warp Speed, Donald Trump applauded its unprecedented pace:

…my administration cut through every piece of red tape to achieve the fastest-ever, by far, launch of a vaccine trial for this new virus, this very vicious virus. And I want to thank all of the doctors and scientists and researchers involved because they’ve never moved like this, or never even close. 20

The large impact on society means the vaccine will be put to market much more quickly than usual, perhaps employing challenge studies or other innovative designs, or by condensing or running certain non-safety critical parts of the process in parallel (for example, creating candidate vaccines before its approval).

While the speed is welcomed by politicians and some members of the public, the pressure to produce a candidate vaccine, and the speed at which it has been done, may be also perceived (perhaps unfairly) to increase the likelihood of the kind of concerns that lead to vaccine hesitancy: concerns over side-effects that are unexpected or rare, or that take longer to appear than the testing process allows for, or that for another reason may be missed in the testing process.

The job to be done will not only be to prove scientifically that the vaccine is safe and effective, but also to inform and reassure the public, especially the group who are willing to take the vaccine in theory—but only after others have tried it out first.

The question remains of how safe is safe enough to warrant mandatory vaccination. It is vanishingly unlikely that there will be absolutely no risk of harm from any biomedical intervention, and the disease itself has dramatically different risk profiles in different groups of the population. In an ideal world, the vaccine would be proven to be 100% safe. But there will likely be some risk remaining. Any mandatory vaccination programme would therefore need to make a value judgement about what level of safety and what level of certainty are safe and certain enough. Of course, it would need to be very high, but a 0% risk option is very unlikely.

A COVID-19 vaccine may be effective in reducing community spread and/or preventing disease in individuals. Mandatory vaccination is most justifiable when there are benefits to both the individual and in terms of preventing transmission. If the benefits are only to individual adults, it is more difficult to support mandatory vaccination. One justification would be to prevent exhaustion of healthcare services in an emergency (eg, running out of ventilators), which has been used a basis of restriction of liberty (it was the main justification for lockdown). It could also be justified in the case of protection of children and others who cannot decide for themselves, and of other adults who either cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

Better than the alternatives

It is a standard principle of decision theory that the expected utility of a proposed option must be compared with the expected utility of relevant alternatives. There are many alternatives to mandatory vaccination. See figure 1 for a summary of the range of strategies for preventing infectious disease.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Strategies for prevention of infectious disease.

A popular position, especially among medical professionals, 7 is that we don’t need mandatory vaccination because people are self-interested or altruistic enough to come forward for vaccination. We can reach herd immunity without mandatory vaccination.

If this were true, all well and good, but the surveys mentioned above cast doubt on this claim with regard to the future COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, reaching herd immunity is not good enough.

First, how fast we reach herd immunity is also important. In a pandemic, time is lives. If it takes a year to reach herd immunity, that could be thousands or tens of thousands of lives in one country.

Second, herd immunity is necessary because some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons: they have allergies, immune problems, or other illnesses. The elderly often don’t mount a strong immune response (that is why it is better to vaccinate children for influenza because they are the biggest spreaders of that disease 7 —although COVID-19 appears to be different on the current evidence). And immunity wanes over time—so even people previously vaccinated may become vulnerable.

Even when national herd immunity is achieved, local areas can fall below that level over time, causing outbreaks, as happened with measles recently. This is especially likely to happen where people opposed to vaccines tend to cluster toghether—for example, in the case of certain religious communities. So ideally we need better than herd immunity to ensure that people are protected both over time and in every place.

These are thus reasons to doubt whether a policy of voluntary vaccination will be good enough, though it remains to be seen.

There are other policies that might obviate the need for mandatory vaccination. South Korea has kept deaths down to about 300 (at the time of writing) with a population of 60 000 000 with a vigorous track and trace programme (although it was criticised for exposing extra-marital affairs and other stigmatised behaviours). 21 Other countries have enforced quarantine with tracking devices. There could be selective lockdown of certain groups, 22 or for intermittent periods of time.

The long-term costs and benefits of such policies would have to be evaluated. That is, we should calculate the expected utility of mandatory vaccination (in combination with other policies) and compare it to alternative strategies (or some other combination of these). How utility should be evaluated is an ethical question. Should we count deaths averted (no matter how old), life years lost or lost well-being (perhaps measured by quality adjusted life years)? 23 Should we count loss of liberty or privacy into the other side the equation?

It may be that a one-off mandatory vaccination is a significantly smaller loss of well-being or liberty than these other complex resource intensive strategies.

So we cannot say whether a mandatory policy of COVID-19 vaccination is ethically justified until we can assess the nature of the vaccine, the gravity of the problem and the likely costs/benefit of alternatives. But it is certainly feasible that it could be justified.

It is important to recognise that coercive vaccination can be justified. This is easy to see by comparing it to other coercive interventions in the public interest.

Conscription in war

In the gravest emergencies, where the existence and freedom of the whole population is at stake, people are conscripted to serve their country, often with high risk of death or permanent injury. We often analogise the pandemic to a war: we are fighting the virus. If people can be sent to war against their will, in certain circumstances some levels of coercion are justified in the war on the virus. Notably, in conditions of extreme emergency in past wars (graver than currently exist for COVID-19), imprisonment or compulsion have even been employed. 24

A more mundane example is the payment of taxes. Taxes benefit individuals because tax revenue allows the preservation of public goods. But if sufficient numbers of others are paying their taxes, it is in a person’s self-interest to free ride and avoid taxes. Indeed, paying taxes may result in harm in some circumstances. 24 In the USA, where there is a large private healthcare sector, paying your taxes may mean you cannot pay for lifesaving medical care that you would otherwise have been able to afford. Still, taxes are mandatory based on considerations of fairness and utility.

Seat belts are mandatory in the UK and many other countries, whereas they were previously voluntary. Interestingly, 50% or so of Americans initially opposed making seat belts mandatory, but now 70% believe mandatory laws are justified. 25

Seat belts reduce the chance of death if you are involved in a car accident by 50%. They are very safe and effective. Notably, they do cause injuries (seat belt syndrome) and even, very occasionally, death. But the chances of being benefitted by wearing them vastly outweigh these risks, so they are mandatory, with enforcement through fines . I have previously likened vaccination to wearing a seat belt. 25

Pre-existing mandatory vaccination

Mandatory vaccination policies are already in place in different parts of the world. Mandatory vaccination policies are those that include a non-voluntary element to vaccine consent and impose a penalty or cost for unjustified refusal (justified refusal includes those who have a contraindicating medical condition, or those who already have natural immunity). There are a range of possible penalties or costs which can coerce people. Australia has the “No Jab, No Pay” scheme which withholds child benefits if the child is not vaccinated, and a “No Jab, No Play” scheme which withholds kindergarten childcare benefits. Italy introduced fines for unvaccinated children who attend school. In the USA, state regulations mandate that children cannot attend school if they are not vaccinated, and healthcare workers are required to vaccinate. Some US states (eg, Michigan) make exemptions difficult to obtain by requiring parents to attend immunisation education courses 26 (see also 27 28 ).

Figure 2 summarises the range of coercive policies that can constitute mandatory vaccination.

Cost of mandatory/coercive vaccination.

Coercion is proportionate

In public health ethics, there is a familiar concept of the “least restrictive alternative”. 28 The least restrictive alternative is the option which achieves a given outcome with the least coercion (and least restriction of liberty).

This is a very weak principle: it uses liberty as tie breaker between options with the same expected utility. More commonly, however, we need to weigh utility against liberty. That is, a more restrictive policy will achieve more expected utility—but is it justified?

According to a principle of proportionality, the additional coercion or infringement in liberty is justified if it is proportionate to the gain in expected utility of the more coercive intervention compared with next best option. That is, additional coercion is justified when the restriction of liberty is both minimised and proportionate to the expected advantages offered by the more coercive policy.

As we can see from the previous section and figure 2, there are a variety of coercive measures. (The Nuffield Council has created a related “Intervention Ladder”, 29 though this includes education and incentives, as well as coercive measures.) Penalties can be high. In war, those who conscientiously objected to fighting went to jail or were forced to perform community service (or participate in medical research). In France, parents were given a suspended prison sentence for refusing to vaccinate their child. 30

While there are legitimate concerns that the effectiveness of these policies in different contexts has been inadequately investigated, a number of these policies have been shown to increase vaccination rates. 31

Notably, the fine or punishment for avoiding taxes varies according to the gravity of the offence. The fine for not wearing a seat belt is typically small. A modest penalty for not being vaccinated in a grave public health emergency could be justifiable. For example, a fine or restriction of movement might be justified.

Figure 3 combines these four factors into an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination.

Algorithm for mandatory vaccination.

These four factors can be justified in several ways. They represent a distillation and development of existing principles in public health ethics, for example, the least restrictive alternative. They can also be justified by the four principles of biomedical ethics.

For example, justice is about the distribution of benefits and burdens across a population in a fair manner. Justice and beneficence, in the context of vaccination policies, both require that the problem addressed is significant and vaccination is an effective means of addressing it. Non-maleficence requires that the risk imposed on individuals be small. Respect for autonomy and justice both require that coercion be applied only if necessary and that it be proportionate to additional utility of mandatory vaccination (and that such coercion be minimised, which is a feature of proportionality).

It is important to recognise that vaccines may have benefits both to the individual and to others (the community). If the vaccine has an overall net expected utility for the individual, beneficence supports its administration.

How great a sacrifice (loss of liberty or risk) can be justified? The most plausible account is provided by a duty of easy rescue: when the cost to an individual is small of some act, but the benefit or harm to another is large, then there is a moral obligation to perform that act. I have elsewhere argued for a collective duty of easy rescue: where the cost of some act to an individual is small, and the benefit of everyone doing that act to the collective is large, there is a collective duty of easy rescue. 32 Such a principle appropriately balances respect for autonomy with justice.

Whether mandatory vaccination for any disease can be justified will depend on precise facts around the magnitude of the problem, the nature of the disease and vaccination, the availability and effectiveness of alternative strategies and the level of coercion. Elsewhere I compare mandatory vaccination for influenza and COVID-19 in more detail. 27

Better than coercion? Payment for risk

Given the risks, or perceived risks, of a novel COVID-19 vaccine, it would be practically and perhaps ethically problematic to introduce a mandatory policy, at least initially (when uncertainty around safety will be greater). Is there a more attractive alternative?

The arguments in favour of vaccination, particularly for those at lower risk (children, young people and those previously infected) can be based on a principle of solidarity. After all, “We are in this together” has been a recurrent slogan supporting pandemic measures in different countries. Those at low risk are asked to do their duty to their fellow citizens, which is a kind of community service. Yet they have little to personally gain from vaccination. The risk/benefit profile looms large for those at lowest risk.

However, another way of looking at this is that those at low risk are being asked to do a job which entails some risk., so they should be paid for the risk they are taking for the sake of providing a public good. And although it may be unlikely to influence so-called 'anti-vaxxers', it may influence a good portion of the 60% of American adults who responded in a March 2020 poll that they would either delay vaccination or didn’t know about vaccination. 33

I have previously argued that we should reconceive live organ donation and participation in risky research, including challenge studies, 34 as jobs where risk should be remunerated, much like we pay construction workers and other dangerous professions both for the job and for the risk involved. 35 36 While the risk profile for approved vaccinations means that it differs from these examples, it could be compared to a job such as social work as a further argument in favour of payment. People may legitimately be incentivised to take on risks, as the Nuffield Council recognises in its Intervention Ladder. 29

The advantage of payment for risk is that people are choosing voluntarily to take it on. As long as we are accurate in conveying the limitations in our confidence about the risks and benefits of a vaccine, then it is up to individuals to judge whether they are worth payment.

Of course, that is a big ask. It would require government to be transparent, explicit and comprehensive in disclosure of data, what should be inferred and the limitations on the data and confidence. This has often not been the case—one only has to remember the denial of the risks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) at the height of the crisis by the British government, when in 1990 the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, John Gummer proudly fed his 4-year-old daughter, Cordelia, a hamburger in front of the world’s media, declaring British beef safe. (Gummer was awarded a peerage in 2010 and is now Lord Deben.) 37

There is also a danger that payment might signal lack of confidence in safety. That is a real risk and one that I will address in the “payment in kind” section below.

But the basic ethical point (public acceptability aside) is that, if a vaccine is judged to be safe enough to be used without payment, then it is safe enough to be used with payment. 36 Payment itself does not make a vaccine riskier. If a vaccine is considered too risky to be administered to the population, then it should not be administered, no matter whether coercively, through incentives, or through some other policy.

A standard objection to payment for risk (whether it is risky research or live organ donation) is that it is coercive: it forces people to take risks against their better judgement. In Macklin’s words:

The reason for holding that it is ethically inappropriate to pay patients to be research subjects is that it is likely to be coercive, violating the ethical requirement that participation in research should be fully voluntary. 38

As I have previously argued, 39 this demonstrates deep conceptual confusion. Coercion exists when an option which is either desired or good is removed or made very unappealing. The standard example is a robber who demands “Your money or your life”. This removes the most desired and best option: your money and your life. The Australian “No Jab, No Pay”scheme arguably does constitute coercion as it removes an option that one is entitled to, that is, non-vaccination with the “Pay”. So too is the Italian scheme of fines coercive.

However, paying people is not coercive. Adding an option, like payment, without affecting the status quo is not coercive. If a person chooses that option, it is because they believe that overall their life will go better with it, in this case, with the vaccination and the payment. The gamble may not pay off: some risk might eventuate and then it wasn’t worth it. But that is life—and probability.

It is true that the value of the option might exercise force over our rational capacities, but that is no different from offering a lot of money to attract a favoured job applicant.

What can be problematic about offers is exploitation. Exploitation exists where one offers less than a fair deal and a person only accepts it because of vulnerability from background injustice.

There are two ways to prevent exploitation. First, we can correct any background injustice that might cause it. In this case, the person would have little reason to accept the offer. Second, we can pay a fair minimum price for risk, as when we pay construction workers danger money. Paradoxically, this requires paying more, rather than less. 40

But there is an important additional feature of vaccination. If a vaccine were deemed to be safe enough to offer on a voluntary basis without payment, it must be safe enough to incentivise with payment because the risks are reasonable. It may be that those who are poorer may be more inclined to take the money and the risk, but this applies to all risky or unpleasant jobs in a market economy. It is not necessarily exploitation if there are protections in place such as a minimum wage or a fair price is paid to take on risk.

So payment for vaccination which passes independent safety standards (and could reasonably be offered without payment) is not exploitation, if the payment is adequate.

Undue influence?

A related concern is undue influence. Undue influence means that because of the attractiveness of the offer, I can’t autonomously and rationally weigh up the risks and benefits. It is sometimes understood as “were it not for the money, he would not do it”.

But that formulation is too broad—were it not for the money, many people would not go to work. Rather what the concept of ‘undue influence’ intends to capture is that the offer, usually money, bedazzles a person so that he or she makes a mistake in weighing up the risks and benefits. Someone offers Jones a million dollars to take on a risk of 99.99% of dying in a dangerous experiment. He just focuses on the money and takes a deal which is unfair and unreasonable. However, taking such an offer might be rational. If Jones’ daughter is about to die without a million dollars and he values her life more than his own, it might be both autonomous and rational to take the deal.

Because we cannot get into people’s minds, it is difficult in practice to unravel whether undue influence is occurring—how can you differentiate it from a rational decision? In practice, if it would be acceptable to be vaccinated for nothing, it is acceptable to do it for money. Concerns about undue influence are best met by implementing procedures to minimise bias and irrational decision making, such as cooling off periods, information reframing, and so on.

There remains a lurking concern that a decision where payment is involved may not be fully autonomous or authentic. For example, racial and ethnic minorities are among the groups most gravely affected by COVID-19, but given concerns about systemic racism in research and medicine, these communities may have good reason to distrust the medical machine. Is it acceptable to use payment to get over those concerns?

All we can do practically to address concerns about autonomy and authenticity is to redouble efforts: to ensure we do know the risks and they are reasonable (and that the underpinning research is not itself subject to concerns about systemic racism), and try to foster trust with such public education campaigns. This can work alongside a payment scheme. People still need to understand what the facts are. They still need to make as autonomous and authentic a decision as possible.

Practical advantages

A payment model could also be superior to a mandatory model from a practical point of view. There may be considerable resistance to a mandatory model which may make it difficult, expensive and time-consuming to implement, with considerable invasion of liberty. In a payment model, people are doing what they want to do.

A payment model could also be very cheap, compared with the alternatives. The cost of the UK’s furlough scheme is estimated to reach £60 billion by its planned end in October, 41 and the economic shut down is likely to cost many billions more, as well as the estimated 200 000 lives expected to be lost as a result. 11 It would make economic sense to pay people quite a lot to incentivise them to vaccinate sooner rather than later—which, for example, would speed up their full return to work.

It may be that payment is only required to incentivise certain groups. For example, it may be that young people require incentivising because they are at lower risk from the disease itself. On the other hand, justice might require payment for all taking the risk. Although the elderly and those at higher risk have more to gain personally, they are also providing a service by being vaccinated and not using limited health resources. (There is an enormous backlog of patients in the NHS—another grave threat to public health.)

One particularly difficult case is paying parents to vaccinate their children. It is one thing to pay people to take on risk for themselves; it is quite another to pay them to enable their children to take on risks, particularly when the children have little to gain as they are at lowest risk. In part, the answer to this issue is determined by how safe the vaccine is and how confident we can be in that assessment. If it were safe, to a level that even a mandatory programme would be justified, it may be appropriate to instead incentivise parents to volunteer their children for vaccination. If safety is less certain, payment for risk in this group is the most problematic.

It is true that some mandatory vaccination programmes already fine parents for failure to vaccinate their children. However, in those cases vaccination is clearly in the child’s best interest, as the child receives the benefit of immunity to diseases such as measles, that pose a greater risk to that child than we currently believe COVID-19 does. Moreover, they are for vaccines that have been in place for many years and have a well-established safety profile.

A standard objection to paying people to do their duty, particularly civic duty, is that it undermines solidarity, trust, reciprocity and other community values. This is the argument given by Richard Titmuss for a voluntary blood donation scheme. 42

The UK does not pay donors for blood or blood products, but does purchase blood products from other countries, including Austria where donors are paid a “travel allowance” for plasma donation. In Australia, which runs a donor system, more than 50% of the plasma comes from paid donors in the USA. 43 Altruism is insufficient. Germany recently moved to paying for plasma donors. It does not appear to have undermined German society.

In the end, the policy we should adopt towards COVID-19 vaccination will depend on the precise risks and benefits of the vaccine (and our confidence in them), the state of the pandemic, the nature of the alternatives, and particularly the public appetite for a vaccine.

In the right circumstances, mandatory vaccination could be ethically justified, if the penalty is suitably proportionate.

Payment for vaccination, perhaps, has even more to be said for it.

For those attached to the gift of altruism, the vaccinated could be offered the opportunity to donate their fee back to the NHS (or similar health service provider). This combined “payment-donation” model would be a happy marriage of ethics and economics. It would give altruists a double chance to be altruistic: first by vaccinating and second by donating the fee. It would also couple self-interest with morality for free-riders (as they would have greater self-interest to do what is moral), and it would give those who face obstacles to vaccination an additional reason to overcome these.

Payment in kind

Of course, benefits can come in cash or kind. An alternative “payment” model is to pay those who vaccinate in kind. This could take the form of greater freedom to travel, opportunity to work or socialise. With some colleagues, I have given similar arguments in favour of immunity passports. 44

One attractive benefit would be the freedom to not wear a mask in public places if you carried a vaccination certificate, and not to socially distance. Currently, everyone has to wear a mask and practise social distancing. Relaxing this requirement for those who have been vaccinated (or otherwise have immunity) would be an attractive benefit. Moreover, it would help ameliorate the risks the unvaccinated would pose to others.

Payment in kind has one advantage over cash in that it might not send the signal that vaccination is perceived to be unsafe. A cash payment may paradoxically undermine vaccination uptake by introducing unwarranted suspicion (though this is an intuition that may need to be tested). Benefits in kind are less susceptible to this concern because they are directly linked to the benefit provided by the vaccine itself: the vaccinated person is no longer a threat to others.

Some might object that this represents a form of shaming the non-vaccinators (some of whom might be excluded from vaccination for health reasons), just as presenting those who evaded conscription with a white feather was a method of shaming perceived free-riders. But this could be managed through an education campaign about the justification for face covering requirements. There is a good reason to require the non-vaccinated to continue to wear masks and practice social distancing, regardless of whether their refusal is justified—they do represent a greater direct threat to others.

It is quite possible that some mixture of altruism, financial and non-financial benefits will obviate the need to introduce mandatory vaccination. It is better that people voluntarily choose on the basis of reasons to act well, rather than being forced to do so. Structuring the rewards and punishments in a just and fair way is one way of giving people reasons for action.

Mandatory vaccination can be ethically justified (see figure 3), but when risks are more uncertain, payment for vaccination (whether in cash or kind) may be an ethically superior option.

Acknowledgments

This piece builds on a previous piece I published on the JME blog, Good Reasons to Vaccinate: COVID19 Vaccine, Mandatory or Payment Model? [ https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/07/29/good-reasons-to-vaccinate-covid19-vaccine-mandatory-or-payment-model/ ]. I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for very many helpful and constructive comments. I would also like to thank Alberto Giubilini for his help.

• Zimmer C , et al
• Bambery B ,
• Douglas T ,
• Selgelid MJ , et al
• Selgelid M ,
• Maslen H , et al
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics
• Worldometer
• ↵ Gov.uk. coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK . Available: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ [Accessed 30 Sep 2020 ].
• Rajgor DD ,
• Archuleta S , et al
• Johnson S ,
• Greenberger M
• Schaffer DeRoo S ,
• Pudalov NJ ,
• Johnson C ,
• Whitehouse.gov
• Savulescu J ,
• Persson I ,
• Wilkinson D
• Giubilini A
• Giubilini A ,
• Savulescu J
• Sabin Vaccine Institute
• MacDonald NE ,
• Dube E , et al
• LX Morning Consult
• Weijer C , et al
• Anomaly J ,
• Grimwade O ,
• Giubilini A , et al
• Brown RCH ,
• Williams B , et al

Supplementary materials

• Press release 

Contributors Sole authorship.

Funding JS is supported by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education. He received funding from the Wellcome Trust WT104848 and WT203132. Through his involvement with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, he has received funding through from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data availability statement No data are available.

Linked Articles

• Response Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination Susan Pennings Xavier Symons Journal of Medical Ethics 2021; 47 709-711 Published Online First: 27 Jan 2021. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-107076

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

• Spoonful of honey or a gallon of vinegar? A conditional COVID-19 vaccination policy for front-line healthcare workers Owen M Bradfield et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021
• The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good Kevin Bardosh et al., BMJ Global Health, 2022
• Exploring vaccine hesitancy in care home employees in North West England: a qualitative study Amelia Dennis et al., BMJ Open, 2022
• Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination Susan Pennings et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021
• COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities Kevin Bardosh et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2022
• Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers beyond COVID-19 Alberto Giubilini et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2022
• No Jab, No Job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel Rachel Gur-Arie et al., BMJ Global Health, 2021
• Evaluating potential unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports Maxwell J Smith, BMJ Global Health, 2022
• Healthcare workers’ (HCWs) attitudes and related factors towards COVID-19 vaccination: a rapid systematic review Mei Li et al., Postgraduate Medical Journal, 2021
• Covid-19: Is the UK heading towards mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers? Jacqui Wise, BMJ, 2021

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions

Affiliations.

• 1 Yale Institute for Global Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
• 2 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
• 3 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
• 4 Yale Institute for Global Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Yale School of Nursing, West Haven, CT, USA.
• 5 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 34774363
• PMCID: PMC8531257
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.039

Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic. Despite the considerable disruption the virus has caused to people's lives, many people are still hesitant to receive a vaccine. Without high rates of uptake, however, the pandemic is likely to be prolonged. Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security. We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators. We replicate this result on a nationally representative sample of Americans and observe that prosocial messaging is robust across subgroups, including those who are most hesitant about vaccines generally. The experiments demonstrate how persuasive messaging can induce individuals to be more likely to vaccinate and also create spillover effects to persuade others to do so as well. The first experiment in this study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov and can be found under the ID number NCT04460703 . This study was registered at Open Science Framework (OSF) at: https://osf.io/qu8nb/?view_only=82f06ecad77f4e54b02e8581a65047d7.

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Experiment 1. Messages that frame…

Experiment 1. Messages that frame vaccination as a cooperative action to protect others…

Experiment 2. The Not Bravery,…

Experiment 2. The Not Bravery, Community Interest, and Community Interest + Embarrassment messages…

Similar articles

• The Efficacy of a Brief, Altruism-Eliciting Video Intervention in Enhancing COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions Among a Population-Based Sample of Younger Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial. Zhu P, Tatar O, Griffin-Mathieu G, Perez S, Haward B, Zimet G, Tunis M, Dubé È, Rosberger Z. Zhu P, et al. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022 May 30;8(5):e37328. doi: 10.2196/37328. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022. PMID: 35544437 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
• Video-based messages to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and nudge vaccination intentions. Jensen UT, Ayers S, Koskan AM. Jensen UT, et al. PLoS One. 2022 Apr 6;17(4):e0265736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265736. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 35385505 Free PMC article.
• Information From Same-Race/Ethnicity Experts Online Does Not Increase Vaccine Interest or Intention to Vaccinate. Gadarian SK, Goodman SW, Michener J, Nyhan B, Pepinsky TB. Gadarian SK, et al. Milbank Q. 2022 Jun;100(2):492-503. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12561. Epub 2022 Mar 22. Milbank Q. 2022. PMID: 35315950 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
• Effect of persuasive messaging about COVID-19 vaccines for 5- to 11-year-old children on parent intention to vaccinate. Kaufman J, Steffens MS, Hoq M, King C, Marques MD, Mao K, Bullivant B, Danchin M. Kaufman J, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 2023 Apr;59(4):686-693. doi: 10.1111/jpc.16374. Epub 2023 Feb 18. J Paediatr Child Health. 2023. PMID: 36807943 Clinical Trial.
• International estimates of intended uptake and refusal of COVID-19 vaccines: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of large nationally representative samples. Robinson E, Jones A, Lesser I, Daly M. Robinson E, et al. Vaccine. 2021 Apr 8;39(15):2024-2034. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.005. Epub 2021 Feb 6. Vaccine. 2021. PMID: 33722411 Free PMC article. Review.
• The power of the family in times of pandemic: Cross-country evidence from 93 countries. Gu M. Gu M. SSM Popul Health. 2024 Jul 4;27:101698. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2024.101698. eCollection 2024 Sep. SSM Popul Health. 2024. PMID: 39139826 Free PMC article.
• Unraveling Herpes Zoster Vaccine Hesitancy, Acceptance, and Its Predictors: Insights From a Scoping Review. Wang X, Shang S, Zhang E, Dai Z, Xing Y, Hu J, Gao Y, Fang Q. Wang X, et al. Public Health Rev. 2024 Jul 24;45:1606679. doi: 10.3389/phrs.2024.1606679. eCollection 2024. Public Health Rev. 2024. PMID: 39113825 Free PMC article. Review.
• Behavioral nudges in social media ads show limited ability to encourage COVID-19 vaccination across countries. Çat O, Chang J, Hlatky R, Li H, Nielson DL. Çat O, et al. PNAS Nexus. 2024 Aug 6;3(8):pgae189. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae189. eCollection 2024 Aug. PNAS Nexus. 2024. PMID: 39108305 Free PMC article.
• Presidents and vaccines: head of state inoculation as a tool for vaccine promotion. Collart L, Lunanga E, Stoop N, Verpoorten M. Collart L, et al. Front Public Health. 2024 May 14;12:1364927. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1364927. eCollection 2024. Front Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38808000 Free PMC article.
• Assessment of COVID-19 Messaging Strategies to Increase Testing for Students With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Walsh TJ, Kalb LG, Gemmell M, Liu J, Caburnay CA, Gurnett CA, Newland JG; COMPASS‐T Study Group. Walsh TJ, et al. J Sch Health. 2024 Jun;94(6):551-561. doi: 10.1111/josh.13448. Epub 2024 Mar 29. J Sch Health. 2024. PMID: 38551064 Clinical Trial.
• Funk C., Tyson A. (Pew Research Center Science & Society); 2020. Intent to get a COVID-19 vaccine rises to 60% as confidence in research and development process increases.
• Bauch C.T., Galvani A.P., Earn D.J.D. Group interest versus self-interest in smallpox vaccination. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2003;100(18):10564–10567. - PMC - PubMed
• Bauch C.T., Earn D.J.D. Vaccination and the theory of games. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101(36):13391–13394. - PMC - PubMed
• Böhm R., Betsch C., Korn L. Self-rational non-vaccination: Experimental evidence from an interactive vaccination game. J Econ Behav Organ. 2016;131:183–195.
• Böhm R., Betsch C., Korn L., Holtmann C. Exploring and promoting prosocial vaccination: a cross-cultural experiment on vaccination of health care personnel. Biomed Res Int:6870984. 2016;2016:1–9. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Associated data

• Search in ClinicalTrials.gov

Related information

Grants and funding.

• UL1 TR001863/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• ClinicalKey
• Elsevier Science
• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• MedlinePlus Health Information
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Yes, You’ll Want to Vaccinate Your Kids Against Covid. An Expert Explains Why.

By Lee Savio Beers

Dr. Beers is the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

This guest essay has been updated to reflect news developments.

Vaccines to protect young children from Covid-19 are likely soon on their way . The Food and Drug Administration has authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use in children ages 5 to 11. If the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention signs off, vaccinations could begin next week .

Why do we need to vaccinate young children against Covid-19? It’s an understandable question. While many parents have anxiously awaited the opportunity to get their children vaccinated, others are hesitant. There are questions about side effects, as with any drug, especially considering the lower risk of severe disease for children with Covid-19 compared with that of adults.

But just because Covid-19 is sickening and killing fewer children than adults does not mean that children are or have been free from risk.

In the United States, more than six million children have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, and more than 23,500 were hospitalized from it. Over 600 children ages 18 and under have died from the disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That’s in large part because the coronavirus has spread so widely in the United States. Vaccine uptake among American adults has been lower than desired ; combined with the highly contagious Delta variant and a decrease in mitigation measures like mask wearing in many parts of the country, it has taken a toll.

Some experts even suggest that the pandemic may not end without a child vaccine campaign: Vaccinating children will help slow the spread of the disease to the unvaccinated and to more at-risk adults, reducing its toll on everyone.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Essay Service Examples Health Coronavirus

Benefits of Covid-19 Vaccine: Argumentative Essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Biotechnology
• Coronavirus

Biotechnology plays a key role in diagnosing infection, preventing infection and treating infected...

• Vaccination

2018 marked the 100-year anniversary of the influenza pandemic. This global illness infected...

Coronaviruses are single-stranded RNA viruses, about 120 nanometers in diameter. They are...

• Bioengineering

Corona viruses are a wide group of viruses that in animals and humans may cause disease. Corona...

The viral family of Coronaviridae has an important genus that affects humans called Coronavirus...

Covid-19 pandemic was caused by SARS-CoV-2 which was first identified in Wuhan City, Hubei...

The Covid-19 is the Coronavirus it is an infectious diseases caused by severe acute respiratory...

My friends are already asking me why people around the world are afraid of the vaccine for...

Viruses are so tiny; about 20 to 400 nanometers in diameter, billions can fit on the head of a...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!