"No Vaccine, No Organ? Ethics of Vaccine Mandates for Pediatric Transpl" by Mark Christopher Navin, Aaron G Wightman et al.
 

No Vaccine, No Organ? Ethics of Vaccine Mandates for Pediatric Transplant.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2-2025

Publication Title

Pediatric transplantation

Abstract

Many transplant programs worldwide are likely to impose vaccine mandates for pediatric solid organ transplant candidates; some already do. Three potential benefits that advocates invoke to justify mandates are improved patient outcomes, efficient organ allocation, and contributions to community protection. We show that none of these benefits can justify mandates. The medical benefits of mandates are unlikely to outweigh the risks of denying life-saving care, mandates threaten trust and equity in organ allocation, and the impact on community protection is likely negligible, while the burden on unvaccinated children would be disproportionate. We also reject the claim that clinician burdens in dealing with vaccine refusers are good reasons for mandates, and point out, to the contrary, that the potential political backlash to mandates is a good reason for restraint. Rather, we argue that vaccine mandates for pediatric transplant candidates should be a last resort; they should only be considered after all evidence-based noncoercive measures have been exhausted, and after mandates for transplant professionals and staff are in place. Since there is little evidence that all such measures have been attempted, it is premature to consider vaccine mandates.

Volume

29

Issue

1

First Page

e70019

DOI

10.1111/petr.70019

ISSN

1399-3046

PubMed ID

39776025

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS