The COVID-19 vaccine, informed consent and the recruitment of volunteers

The COVID-19 vaccine, informed consent and the recruitment of
volunteers
Posted on November 23, 2020

By Jennifer O’Neill.

Last week, in an announcement which offered hope in a time of growing despondence, Pfizer declared
that their COVID-19 vaccine had “outperformed expectations in the crucial phase 3 clinical trials, proving
90% effective in stopping people falling ill.” If approved, Pfizer’s jab will be the first in a new era of
vaccines. Instead of using a traditional approach, such as an attenuated, or weakened, viral vector, Pfizer’s
vaccine uses viral mRNA as “molecular instructions for human cells to make the coronavirus spike
protein”. This will potentially stimulate development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Tentative trial data
appears promising. Of the 44,000 participants, only 94 developed COVID-19 symptoms. Given that the
FDA have set the bar for licencing at 50%, it seems likely that the vaccine could be made available soon.
Likewise, the UK equivalent body – the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) –
are similarly poised to offer an emergency licence if satisfied that its safe and effective.

As the media rush to hail the new vaccine – bolstered by the subsequent news Moderna have a 95%
effective vaccine in trials – it is important to ensure that information communicated to the public be
truthful, transparent and accurate. This is best communicated by experienced professionals. Questions
remain as to whether the vaccine is effective across all populations. Of particular concern is the elderly
population known to elicit weaker immunological responses to vaccines. It is also yet to be seen whether
the vaccine will completely block transmission or instead simply reduce symptoms in vaccinated
individuals – vital in terms of easing social distancing measures. There is also a lack of longevity in terms
of the data. Before the pandemic, it would take 10-15 years to develop a vaccine from inception to
licencing, yet the COVID-19 vaccines data was collected over two months. Nevertheless, the UK
Government forges ahead with plans to roll out the vaccine. The military are being enlisted to distribute
vaccine vials on dry ice – in their “biggest task since the war” – and St John’s Ambulance Volunteers are
recruiting volunteers to administer the jab. Yet we must pause to consider how to ensure adequate levels
of vaccine acceptance. Arguably, this is best achieved through shared decision-making and informed
consent, which can be a vehicle to addressing vaccine hesitancy.

Mandatory vaccination was proposed as a solution to childhood vaccine hesitancy in 2019 by Health
Secretary Matt Hancock. At that time, the House of Lords and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child
Health (RCPCH) opposed the move, arguing that it would backfire, creating determined vaccine refusers.
 Vaccine mandates may be undermined by high levels of exemption as they fail to address underlying
fears. Studies suggest that comparable results may be achieved by strongly recommending vaccines
instead. The RCPCH prompted healthcare practitioners to ensure “that every contact [with a patient]…be a
vaccine opportunity” and so highlighted the crucial role informed consent holds in ensuring the success
of vaccination strategies. This is particularly pertinent given the global conspiracy theories which surround
COVID and in light of limited vaccine development time – two issues which are likely to contribute to
vaccine hesitancy.

The process of shared decision-making is crucial to ensuring legally valid informed consent is obtained. It
enables experienced practitioners to engage in a dialogue with patients to address treatment fears,
answer questions and provides an opportunity to challenge misinformation. It must be recognised that
the general public have questions surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine, and it should not be left to the
media to answer them. The use of volunteers raises serious concerns as to whether this key part of a
vaccination strategy has been considered. It is particularly important in light of the Cumberlege Report
(First Do No Harm) which exposed a lack of trust in healthcare due to the “..widespread lack of informed
consent and a reluctance …by those charged with patient care.. to listen and…act…”[1].

An open dialogue as part of informed consent can be used to prompt consideration as to how autonomy
is interpreted. Rather than the individualistic interpretations which stimulate talk of infringed individual
liberties and anti-mask opposition, autonomy sits more comfortably as a relational value. The COVID-19
pandemic has demonstrated to great effect that when it comes to disease, we do not live in isolation. Our
understanding of autonomy should therefore incorporate some social responsibility. Whilst ultimately
upholding the patient’s right to decide whether to incur individual risk, information disclosed to patients
should be given from both individual and societal perspective. In this way, patients can be fully informed.
 The benefits of vaccination should therefore address both benefit to the individual and society, such as
the potential for individual and herd immunity. It should also be disclosed that such immunity may not be
long-lasting or equally effective across all age-ranges. Risk should be disclosed in terms of both known
risks, including common side effects, and potentially unknown risk. The risk from not vaccinating should
also be explained – both to the individual who may be at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 – and to
society through increased transmission.

Such risk may include both primary infection and subsequent “Long-COVID”. This will affect both the
individual and society as a whole through increased strain on the NHS. Whilst there will still be vaccine
refusal, such an approach will engage those who are, as yet, undecided by tackling misinformation and
promoting solidarity.

Ultimately, by upholding autonomy, trust in the profession can also be rebuilt, which is vital given the
likelihood of future epidemics and pandemics. This approach will require additional consultation time, but
this should be seen, in the long-term, as an investment. Given the complexities of the issues raised, the
suitability of an “expanded workforce … [administering] these vaccines to the public”, is thrown into doubt.
It is particularly concerning that “people who are not healthcare providers …[could] administer the
vaccine” given that only last year MPs outlined the need for “..better training of health professionals on
what vaccines are, what they do, how they work and what is in them so that those professionals are ably
equipped to answer [patient’s] questions”. Whilst the current pandemic may necessitate a quick-fix
approach, the long-term objectives of improving vaccine confidence and overall trust in medical science
must not be lost.

Author: Jennifer O’Neill

Affiliations: Lecturer, University of Glasgow, College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences; Course Co-
ordinator for Clinical Bioethics and Legal Medicine, European University Cyprus, School of Medicine

Competing interests: No competing interests

Social media accounts of post author: @j_o_neill_

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3099

Other content recommended for you

Altered vaccination schedules and informed consent How Pharmacists Can Help Halt COVID-19
Hazem Zohny, JME blog, 2021 Vaccine Hesitancy
 By staff, US Pharmacist, 2020
Altered vaccination schedules and informed consent
Hazem Zohny, JME blog, 2021 CDC Offers More Guidance on Vaccinating During
 COVID-19 Pandemic
No Jab, No Job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory By staff, US Pharmacist, 2020
COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel
Rachel Gur-Arie et al., Global Health, 2021 Town hall panelists discuss COVID-19 vaccine
 hesitancy, concomitant use
No Jab, No Job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory Trisha Korioth, AAP News, 2021
COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel
Rachel Gur-Arie et al., BMJ, 2021 Covid-19: balancing personal risk and professional
 duty
Ethical allocation of future COVID-19 vaccines Denis W Harkin, The BMJ: Research, 2020
Rohit Gupta et al., J Med Ethics, 2021
 Myth 1 - AI Autocontouring will disrupt the way we
 work. Mirada's AI is Zero-Click and can be
 configured to your clinical requirements
 Mirada Medical

Powered by

 I consent to the use of Google Analytics and related cookies across the TrendMD network (widget, website,
 blog). Learn more

 Yes No

(Visited 10,057 times, 4 visits today)

 Pandemic, Vaccines

  PREVIOUS NEXT POST 
 POST

0 Comments JME blog Disqus' Privacy Policy 
 1 Login

 Recommend t Tweet f Share Sort by Best

 Start the discussion…

 LOG IN WITH OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

 Name

 Be the first to comment.

✉ Subscribe d Add Disqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd ⚠ Do Not Sell My Data

SEARCH

 Search Search

CATEGORIES

 Select Category

BLOG EDITORS

Hazem Zohny

Mike King

LATEST J OURNAL CONTENT
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Physician perspectives on placebo ethics
13 July 2021

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Voluntarily chosen roles and conscientious objection in health care
13 July 2021

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Research abuses against people of colour and other vulnerable groups in early psychedelic research
12 July 2021

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
COVID-19 vaccination and the right to take risks
12 July 2021

EXTENDED ESSAY
Lord Sumption and the values of life, liberty and security: before and since the COVID-19 outbreak
12 July 2021

BMJ C AREERS

 Salaried GP or Locum GP
 Ashton-Under-Lyne, Greater Manchester
 Salaried GP or Locum GP required to join our team. Salaried GP – £10,000 per session with low home visit and paper
 light admin. Locum GP - £650 day
 Recruiter: HT Practice

 Apply for this job

 Specialists required
 Cayman Islands (KY)
 Various Specialists required to join our 4 District Health Centres in the Cayman Island. Excellent opportunities & many
 benefits on offer.
 Recruiter: Cayman Islands Health Services Authority

 Apply for this job

 Consultant Haematologist
 Manchester £82,096 to £110,683 a year
 Th Ch i ti NHS F d ti T t dE t Ch hi NHS T t ki t i t C lt tH t l i t

 BMJ Blogs

 Comment and Opinion | Open Debate

 The views and opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the original authors. They do not
 necessarily represent the views of BMJ and should not be used to replace medical advice. Please see
 our full website terms and conditions.

 All BMJ blog posts are posted under a CC-BY-NC licence

 BMJ Journals

Cookie settings © BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2021. All rights reserved.