There are good reasons to reject both of these arguments, though. Two lawsuits have already been filed making both the legal and policy arguments, one by a corrections officer in New Mexico, and one by employees of the Los Angeles United School District. The policy argument against mandates is that the standards for emergency use authorization are lower than the standards for full approval, that the vaccines are “experimental” and not enough is known about them, and it is therefore unfair to mandate them. The same language requires the informational materials accompanying EUA vaccines to tell people that “It is your choice to receive” the relevant vaccine. The legal argument is that the law setting out the requirements for emergency use authorization contains language requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that people know they can refuse or accept the vaccine. These mandates, which are designed to increase safety, stand on solid legal ground, though accommodations may be legally required for those with disabilities or religious beliefs.Īmong those who believe that EUA vaccines cannot be mandated, the best two arguments are a legal argument and a policy one. Employers, especially health care entities, and universities have, however, historically mandated vaccines. The FDA has never before granted an EUA for a vaccine for the entire population, so there is no perfect precedent here. Text, e xamples and definitions are all taken from the book below by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn.Exclusive analysis of biotech, pharma, and the life sciences Learn MoreĪ little context to begin: This is new ground.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |