Ethical considerations around vaccines have been existing for ages. There have been debates around its efficacy, research and development, autonomy, mandate requirements and disparities in access to the vaccines. The debate has erupted once again with vaccination drive against the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.
Vaccines are responsible for successes of many global public health concerns such as the eradication of smallpox and reductions in complications like polio and measles.
In the light of information related to the safety, efficacy, benefits and need of the vaccine, it only seems logical and fair that the people get themselves vaccinated.
Yet there are doubts/debates on the same. Some individuals or communities disagree with the mandate and medical safety needs. The mandate appears to infringe on individual rights to protect themselves and their family. This forces the authorities to consider incentivization practices to ensure a successful vaccination drives.
What are some ethical concerns around this situation? How can one look at the same in the light of responsibility, respect, fairness, and honesty - PMI's values as per Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
Join in the discussions with your thoughts... Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
May 06, 2021 8:40 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Unfortunately, while I might share that view, the percentage of the population that does will vary dramatically from country to country. The downside of democracy is that everyone has a voice and freedom to act on their beliefs, even if those might be to the indirect detriment of the greater whole.
Kiron
Dear Kiton
Your perspective is very interesting
Thanks for sharing
You wrote: "The downside of democracy is that everyone has a voice and freedom to act on their beliefs, even if those might be to the indirect detriment of the greater whole."
Why do you consider it a downside to live in democracy?
What to do when there is a risk of damaging a whole good?
It remains to be seen what will be "a whole good"
...
1 reply by Peter Rapin
May 09, 2021 11:00 AM
Peter Rapin
...
With freedom comes responsibility. You are free to do as you wish however your freedom cannot infringe on my freedom.
You are free to drive "with a license". You are free to not have a license but then you are not free to drive. This requirement is put in place to protect the "whole". You are free to cross borders "with a vaccination passport". You are free not to carry such passport but then you are not free to cross borders. Makes sense.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
May 05, 2021 7:21 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Challenging question, Deepa!
I'm not sure that PMI's framework is designed to tackle such questions as the first three values within it can apply equally to an individual or a larger collective.
Respecting an individual's right to choose whether or not to get vaccinated might show irresponsibility to the larger group if too many individuals choose NOT to get vaccinated.
At what point do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
Dear Kiron
Here in Europe they are preparing to create a "vaccinated passport".
Only those who have been vaccinated can travel between member states
Are bureaucrats testing people's reaction to freedom of choice, or of opinion?
"Because of the flies" I already got two doses of the Pfizer vaccine :-) Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
May 09, 2021 9:47 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Your perspective on the topic is very interesting.
Imagine the scenario:
- The distrust is total
- Many members of your team stop working remotely
- 50% of your team members do not want (for this or that reason) to be vaccinated
- 50% are in favor of vaccines
How would you proceed as a project manager?
As to people working remotely, what does their position on vaccine matter to others. Last I heard you can't get exposed over Zoom, emails, phone calls, or written communications. The concern from a PM perspective is that there may be a greater probability of missing assignments due to sickness. The mitigation is not to get them to change their minds on the vaccine but but develop redistribution-of-assignments strategy if necessary. "I don't care about your position on vaccines, tell me how you are going to deliver on your project assignment."
I don't understand the connection with vaccines and stop working remotely. Are they sick? if so, see first paragraph.
How would I proceed - first, this has nothing to do with the vaccine. Drill down and find out what is going on. Get back to the project.
Why has the vaccine issue come to the surface especially in a remote work situation? Why are people discussing their personal views?
Totally different situation in an office environment. Until herd immunity sets in there may be, or perceive to be, an exposure problem. Your response would be to put protocols in place to minimize risk of exposure (mitigation measures). That's what remote working is all about.
In my opinion as a PM you cannot challenge people's belief or even attempt to. If a threat to the project - you mitigate. If, because of their belief, they can't or won't contribute to the project, mitigate - find some they can/will do to benefit the project or replace.
What is your response when a team member tells you they can't work with someone because they are anti-vaccine? Exchange anti-vaccine for Muslim, or Christian, or Black, or gay. Is there that much difference?
...
2 replies by Kiron Bondale and Luis Branco
May 09, 2021 1:33 PM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Maybe I didn't explain myself well
Now that we have more (relative) knowledge of covid-19 and that a large part of the population is vaccinated, many people who worked remotely will start to work in person (in companies or in company offices)
My question was for the people on the team who return to the offices (some vaccinated and others not)
May 10, 2021 8:27 AM
Kiron Bondale
...
I don't think you can compare vaccine usage to one's gender, religion or sexual orientation. The latter don't affect others, the former does if one believes in the current science.
Kiron
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
May 09, 2021 9:59 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Dear Kiton
Your perspective is very interesting
Thanks for sharing
You wrote: "The downside of democracy is that everyone has a voice and freedom to act on their beliefs, even if those might be to the indirect detriment of the greater whole."
Why do you consider it a downside to live in democracy?
What to do when there is a risk of damaging a whole good?
It remains to be seen what will be "a whole good"
With freedom comes responsibility. You are free to do as you wish however your freedom cannot infringe on my freedom.
You are free to drive "with a license". You are free to not have a license but then you are not free to drive. This requirement is put in place to protect the "whole". You are free to cross borders "with a vaccination passport". You are free not to carry such passport but then you are not free to cross borders. Makes sense. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
May 09, 2021 10:48 AM
Replying to Peter Rapin
...
As to people working remotely, what does their position on vaccine matter to others. Last I heard you can't get exposed over Zoom, emails, phone calls, or written communications. The concern from a PM perspective is that there may be a greater probability of missing assignments due to sickness. The mitigation is not to get them to change their minds on the vaccine but but develop redistribution-of-assignments strategy if necessary. "I don't care about your position on vaccines, tell me how you are going to deliver on your project assignment."
I don't understand the connection with vaccines and stop working remotely. Are they sick? if so, see first paragraph.
How would I proceed - first, this has nothing to do with the vaccine. Drill down and find out what is going on. Get back to the project.
Why has the vaccine issue come to the surface especially in a remote work situation? Why are people discussing their personal views?
Totally different situation in an office environment. Until herd immunity sets in there may be, or perceive to be, an exposure problem. Your response would be to put protocols in place to minimize risk of exposure (mitigation measures). That's what remote working is all about.
In my opinion as a PM you cannot challenge people's belief or even attempt to. If a threat to the project - you mitigate. If, because of their belief, they can't or won't contribute to the project, mitigate - find some they can/will do to benefit the project or replace.
What is your response when a team member tells you they can't work with someone because they are anti-vaccine? Exchange anti-vaccine for Muslim, or Christian, or Black, or gay. Is there that much difference?
Dear Peter
Maybe I didn't explain myself well
Now that we have more (relative) knowledge of covid-19 and that a large part of the population is vaccinated, many people who worked remotely will start to work in person (in companies or in company offices)
My question was for the people on the team who return to the offices (some vaccinated and others not)
...
1 reply by Peter Rapin
May 09, 2021 4:41 PM
Peter Rapin
...
I agree that the situation poses a project risk ranging from morale to absenteeism. But the PM can't put himself in the position of arbitrator nor can you impose your beliefs one way or the other.
The company may choose to implement a policy with regards to "proof-of-vaccine" for return to the office however I would question the legality. I believe that a person has a right to a safe environment but who will determine what is reasonably safe.
There are some solution to the possible problem: 1) better ventilation, 2) isolated work spaces, 3) continued separation and use of masks., and 4) get rid of 90% of the meetings (my favorite).
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
May 09, 2021 1:33 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Maybe I didn't explain myself well
Now that we have more (relative) knowledge of covid-19 and that a large part of the population is vaccinated, many people who worked remotely will start to work in person (in companies or in company offices)
My question was for the people on the team who return to the offices (some vaccinated and others not)
I agree that the situation poses a project risk ranging from morale to absenteeism. But the PM can't put himself in the position of arbitrator nor can you impose your beliefs one way or the other.
The company may choose to implement a policy with regards to "proof-of-vaccine" for return to the office however I would question the legality. I believe that a person has a right to a safe environment but who will determine what is reasonably safe.
There are some solution to the possible problem: 1) better ventilation, 2) isolated work spaces, 3) continued separation and use of masks., and 4) get rid of 90% of the meetings (my favorite). Saving Changes...
As to people working remotely, what does their position on vaccine matter to others. Last I heard you can't get exposed over Zoom, emails, phone calls, or written communications. The concern from a PM perspective is that there may be a greater probability of missing assignments due to sickness. The mitigation is not to get them to change their minds on the vaccine but but develop redistribution-of-assignments strategy if necessary. "I don't care about your position on vaccines, tell me how you are going to deliver on your project assignment."
I don't understand the connection with vaccines and stop working remotely. Are they sick? if so, see first paragraph.
How would I proceed - first, this has nothing to do with the vaccine. Drill down and find out what is going on. Get back to the project.
Why has the vaccine issue come to the surface especially in a remote work situation? Why are people discussing their personal views?
Totally different situation in an office environment. Until herd immunity sets in there may be, or perceive to be, an exposure problem. Your response would be to put protocols in place to minimize risk of exposure (mitigation measures). That's what remote working is all about.
In my opinion as a PM you cannot challenge people's belief or even attempt to. If a threat to the project - you mitigate. If, because of their belief, they can't or won't contribute to the project, mitigate - find some they can/will do to benefit the project or replace.
What is your response when a team member tells you they can't work with someone because they are anti-vaccine? Exchange anti-vaccine for Muslim, or Christian, or Black, or gay. Is there that much difference?
I don't think you can compare vaccine usage to one's gender, religion or sexual orientation. The latter don't affect others, the former does if one believes in the current science.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Meade RubensteinPM III| IT Project GuideSparta, Nj, United States
I'm not sure this is an appropriate Project Management topic, based on the US Constitution prohibiting the government (and corporations) from invading individuals' rights. I realize this is a tricky subject, since you can argue that the vaccination is in the interest of the general good of the country and people. BUT what if we translate this into some religious followers have a higher tendency to more violence OR one's stance on gun rights can be used to determine the person's potential for violence?? The majority should rule BUT respect to the minority. My concern is that any short-term adjustment to personal liberties and freedoms could result in a long term loss of those. Historical precedence of the polio or mumps vaccine has shown those to be OVERALL in the best public interest, but that took years to really understand the outcome and get the majority of the population to agree.....there is no EASY answer to this question and the discussion SHOULD remain outside of any business regardless Saving Changes...
Majeed HosseineyChief Strategy Officer (Business Transformation)| Elements Global ServicesBarcelona, Spain
Thank you dear Deepa for a great but complex question.
The PMI Ethics framework is not easy to apply directly to this social political question Conduct . Vaccination question still raises the questions related to the values represented in PMI Code of Ethics; Honesty, Respect, Responsibility and Fairness.
What could be great as a society of professionals to promote and apply if the mandate of vaccination takes into consideration the diversity with regards to these values. Diversity in this context is about different need, situation and health consideration even religion and economics situation to individual in a democratic society across the world. With regards to respect I personally respect the general public mandate to be vaccinated even there are always uncertainties. Saving Changes...
