A Shot in the Arm for the Military: Consent to Immunisation Against Biological Warfare Agents
Identifieur interne : 000249 ( 2020/Analysis ); précédent : 000248; suivant : 000250A Shot in the Arm for the Military: Consent to Immunisation Against Biological Warfare Agents
Auteurs : T. M. GibsonSource :
- Medical Law International [ 0968-5332 ] ; 2002.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- Aller, Biological warfare, Biological warfare agents, Biological weapons, Biological weapons convention, Bolam test, Communicable disease, Compulsory immunisation, Compulsory vaccination, Defence, Disciplinary action, Edward jenner, Ethical considerations, European convention, Explanatory report, Force protection, Full immunity, General population, Great britain, Health care workers, Herd immunity, Home office, Human rights, Ibid, Immunisation, Individual rights, Infectious disease, Infectious diseases, Legal basis, Legal requirements, Lord donaldson, Mandatory immunisation, Mandatory immunisation policy, Mandatory policy, Mandatory vaccination, Mass immunisation programmes, Medical ethics, Medical negligence, Medical officer, Medical opinion, Medical procedure, Medical procedures, Medical treatment, Military authorities, Military personnel, National health service, Naval discipline, Notifiable diseases, Outbreak, Oxford university press, Primary care, Programme, Public health, Public health measures, Responsible body, Safety legislation, Same time, Service personnel, Serviceman, Single service, Smallpox, Vaccination, Voluntary immunisation, Whilst, Yellow fever.
Abstract
The risk to Britain's Armed Forces from Biological Warfare (BW) is low but without protection their use would be devastating. Available protective measures include immunisation. The Government owes a legal duty of care to Servicemen to provide protection against a range of hazards, including those of BW. The State also owes Servicemen a duty of care to allow free and informed consent or free and informed refusal to medical procedures, including immunisation. However, refusal by key personnel to accept BW immunisation could degrade operational capability. Resolution between these two, potentially conflicting, duties of care may be controversial. To override a soldier's expressed interests would rank society's needs higher than those of the individual. Yet there are circumstances, such as exposure of Servicemen to BW used by an aggressor, where this would be ethically acceptable. The State's interests, combined with the best interests of the Serviceman, provide adequate ethical argument for both occupational immunisation (where it is an entry criterion for the Armed Forces) and mandatory immunisation (where disciplinary action may be taken against the non-compliant). Historically, both approaches have been used for public health immunisations and the legal framework already exists for both.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/096853320200500302
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 001C81
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 001C81
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 001C45
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 005E17
- to stream Main, to step Curation: 005A08
- to stream Main, to step Exploration: 005A08
- to stream 2020, to step Extraction: 000249
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:5B1B053DEBA613D0344D287B126BBCA4DB8D2267Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A Shot in the Arm for the Military: Consent to Immunisation Against Biological Warfare Agents</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Gibson, T M" sort="Gibson, T M" uniqKey="Gibson T" first="T. M." last="Gibson">T. M. Gibson</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:5B1B053DEBA613D0344D287B126BBCA4DB8D2267</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/096853320200500302</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/M70-18FJ46QD-7/fulltext.pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001C81</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001C81</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">001C81</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">001C45</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">001C45</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0968-5332:2002:Gibson T:a:shot:in</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">005E17</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">005A08</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">005A08</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/2020/Extraction">000249</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A Shot in the Arm for the Military: Consent to Immunisation Against Biological Warfare Agents</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Gibson, T M" sort="Gibson, T M" uniqKey="Gibson T" first="T. M." last="Gibson">T. M. Gibson</name><affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="subField">1EZ</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Medical Law International</title><idno type="ISSN">0968-5332</idno><idno type="eISSN">2047-9441</idno><imprint><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002">2002</date><biblScope unit="volume">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="161">161</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="179">179</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0968-5332</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0968-5332</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Aller</term><term>Biological warfare</term><term>Biological warfare agents</term><term>Biological weapons</term><term>Biological weapons convention</term><term>Bolam test</term><term>Communicable disease</term><term>Compulsory immunisation</term><term>Compulsory vaccination</term><term>Defence</term><term>Disciplinary action</term><term>Edward jenner</term><term>Ethical considerations</term><term>European convention</term><term>Explanatory report</term><term>Force protection</term><term>Full immunity</term><term>General population</term><term>Great britain</term><term>Health care workers</term><term>Herd immunity</term><term>Home office</term><term>Human rights</term><term>Ibid</term><term>Immunisation</term><term>Individual rights</term><term>Infectious disease</term><term>Infectious diseases</term><term>Legal basis</term><term>Legal requirements</term><term>Lord donaldson</term><term>Mandatory immunisation</term><term>Mandatory immunisation policy</term><term>Mandatory policy</term><term>Mandatory vaccination</term><term>Mass immunisation programmes</term><term>Medical ethics</term><term>Medical negligence</term><term>Medical officer</term><term>Medical opinion</term><term>Medical procedure</term><term>Medical procedures</term><term>Medical treatment</term><term>Military authorities</term><term>Military personnel</term><term>National health service</term><term>Naval discipline</term><term>Notifiable diseases</term><term>Outbreak</term><term>Oxford university press</term><term>Primary care</term><term>Programme</term><term>Public health</term><term>Public health measures</term><term>Responsible body</term><term>Safety legislation</term><term>Same time</term><term>Service personnel</term><term>Serviceman</term><term>Single service</term><term>Smallpox</term><term>Vaccination</term><term>Voluntary immunisation</term><term>Whilst</term><term>Yellow fever</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The risk to Britain's Armed Forces from Biological Warfare (BW) is low but without protection their use would be devastating. Available protective measures include immunisation. The Government owes a legal duty of care to Servicemen to provide protection against a range of hazards, including those of BW. The State also owes Servicemen a duty of care to allow free and informed consent or free and informed refusal to medical procedures, including immunisation. However, refusal by key personnel to accept BW immunisation could degrade operational capability. Resolution between these two, potentially conflicting, duties of care may be controversial. To override a soldier's expressed interests would rank society's needs higher than those of the individual. Yet there are circumstances, such as exposure of Servicemen to BW used by an aggressor, where this would be ethically acceptable. The State's interests, combined with the best interests of the Serviceman, provide adequate ethical argument for both occupational immunisation (where it is an entry criterion for the Armed Forces) and mandatory immunisation (where disciplinary action may be taken against the non-compliant). Historically, both approaches have been used for public health immunisations and the legal framework already exists for both.</div></front></TEI><affiliations><list></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Gibson, T M" sort="Gibson, T M" uniqKey="Gibson T" first="T. M." last="Gibson">T. M. Gibson</name></noCountry></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/PandemieGrippaleV1/Data/2020/Analysis
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000249 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/2020/Analysis/biblio.hfd -nk 000249 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Sante
|area= PandemieGrippaleV1
|flux= 2020
|étape= Analysis
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:5B1B053DEBA613D0344D287B126BBCA4DB8D2267
|texte= A Shot in the Arm for the Military: Consent to Immunisation Against Biological Warfare Agents
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.34. |  |