ACCT1081 Covid-Jab-Ethical-Issues Report Sample

ACCT1081 Covid-Jab-Ehical-Issue

Requirements:

Research into current ethical issue (Written Component)
This is worth 10% of your marks and should not exceed 1000 words excluding appendices.
You are required to work in groups of two students to search existing databases of: newspapers, periodicals, YouTube, academic articles, etc. to find a current business event that involves either ethical or unethical practice or behaviour. The business event should have occurred within the last two years.

NOTE WELL: Your choice of ethical issue has to be approved by your lecturer/instructor as we wish to avoid the same issue being presented more than once in the seminar.

You are then required to discuss the following issues:

1. What are the relevant facts of the case?

2. Who are the primary stakeholders, and why are they considered such?

3. What are the ethical issues? (This includes identifying the ethical issues associated with each of the relevant facts and ranking these or commenting on the severity of each. You should include the different perspectives of: utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and justice and fairness.

Solution

Introduction:

The emergence of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its subsequent pandemic spread has resulted in a global public health crisis with devastating health, social and economic consequences.  As per the MBA Assignment Expert, The initial response of the different states was to impose restrictive measures and social barriers, such as the use of face masks or social distancing or mobility restrictions. In this context of pandemic chaos and after the rapid and celebrated development of several effective vaccines against COVID-19

Relevant Facts:

There is no doubt that the prevention of infectious diseases through vaccination has been one of the most important advances in public health. However, it seems that scepticism towards such vaccines Thus, reluctance to the vaccine, defined as refusal, delay or acceptance with doubts about the usefulness and safety of the vaccine, can affect a significant number of the population, which may be reluctant to vaccinate for COVID- 19, despite the clear public perception of the high health risks associated with the pandemic. In such a situation, different medico-legal and ethical debates emerge, In the reluctance to COVID-19 vaccination in health professionals, we would find different values and principles in conflict. On the one hand, as mentioned above, a group of values and principles related to the protection of health, both collective and individual, are identified.

Primary Stakeholders

Given the realities of ordering coronavirus vaccinations in the working environment of stakeholders and employees, businesses must provide a stable environment to receive vaccinations, providing reassurance and support. This is necessary because the work environment must provide stakeholders with a credible, open and educational conversation about vaccine use. Web and other strong administrative portals to support delegates with booking arrangements and other motivational schemes. The convenience of adaptability to go to delegates and get antibody certification is important for all our critical partners to help prevent the spread of coronavirus from person to person. The report proposed by Berlinger et al. (2020), is if a state or county's overall prosperity requirements require employees to be vaccinated, the course for delegates to be vaccinated against Covid is one of the obligations companies have under occupational safety guidelines. It is a truly actionable step to consider as a department. Anyway, in conditions where there is no sensible government need to order vaccination, various organizations are logically engaging to change their work prosperity and security responsibilities against their assurance, and various responsibilities toward staff.

Fundamentally, administrators ought to continue to have regard for truth be told practicable advances they can take to deliver their responsibilities under work prosperity and security guidelines and whether that consolidates necessary vaccination will depend upon the states of every business. General prosperity should attempt to execute the most un-restrictive intercession at whatever point what is going on permits, yet inoculation orders are the most restrictive, nosy sort of counteracting agent technique (Sinclair et al. 2021). Moral conversation on vaccination orders dependably suggests that except for assuming any leftover reasonable means have failed (or are most likely going to forget) to augment immune response take-up as well as lessening disorder transmission by various means to an all-right level, orders should not be done. This anticipates that foundations should consider whether they have sought after each possible intervention and sponsorship instruments for preventing sickness even without a vaccination mediation.

Utilitarianism Approach to COVID-19 Vaccination:

Utilitarianism is the laws are chosen because they bring about the best consequences. If the utilitarian course of action is not adopted, someone (often many) people will suffer or die avoidably. There may be good reasons to sacrifice well-being or lives. But such choices need to be made transparently and in full awareness of their ethical cost. Therefore, the requirement to get the jab wasn’t only in the best interest for individual but also for the countries and states Australia wide. Therefore, people of power saw this as way to adopt this to ensure that well-being of our lives was completed for good reasons to ensure the jab was mandatory. This was a major issue worldwide country wide and state-wide with the severity of this high.
Deontological approach to COVID-19 vaccination:

Vaccine reluctance in health professionals must also be addressed from a deontological perspective. However, at present, it is important to note that studies show high efficacy figures for different types of vaccines in preventing infection in the vaccinated person, but it is not yet known whether COVID-19 vaccination prevents transmission. That is, at present, we know that a vaccinated person is more protected from the disease, but it is unknown whether a vaccinated person can transmit the disease. Therefore, at present, it is not yet established that vaccination prevents a direct risk of transmission to patients.

From a deontological point of view, a health professional's decision not to vaccinate would affect his or her own health, herd immunity and exemplarity, and is therefore highly recommended, but it is not clear that it would cause direct harm to the patient.

On the other hand, it is a deontological responsibility of the doctor, in relation to vaccination, to generate confidence in it, using evidence-based knowledge when available, avoiding the dissemination and promotion of misinformation.

This was a major issue worldwide country wide and state-wide with the severity of this high.

Justice & Fairness Approach To COVID-19 Vaccination:

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in lockdowns, the restriction of liberties, debate about the right to refuse medical treatment and many other changes to the everyday behaviour of persons. The justice issues it raises are diverse, profound and will demand our attention for some time. The need to make the vaccine mandatory was one of the major talking points, as many saw this as a major factor of their rights as a individual being non-existent. People didn’t see this fair to them as some were not certain on getting the vaccine due to the untested vaccines and their right not to get vaccinated due to this issue. The COVID-19 pandemic is pushing ethical deliberation in new directions and many of them turn on approaching medical ethics with a greater emphasis on justice and related ethical concepts.

This was a major issue worldwide country wide and state-wide with the severity of this high.

References

Berlinger, N., Wynia, M., Powell, T., Hester, D.M., Milliken, A., Fabi, R. and Jenks, N.P., 2020. Ethical framework for health care institutions responding to novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) guidelines for institutional ethics services responding to COVID-19. The Hastings Center, 12.

Sinclair, R.R., Probst, T.M., Watson, G.P. and Bazzoli, A., 2021. Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: how economic stressors and occupational risk factors influence workers’ occupational health reactions to COVID‐19. Applied psychology, 70(1), pp.85-119.