Ethics of COVID-19 Vaccine Passports

by Abi Cooper

A vaccine passport is a document which certifies that the holder has immunity to a certain disease which is, in this particular case, COVID-19. Although many people would regard the contemporary controversy surrounding vaccine passports as an exclusively modern issue, it has in fact been up for debate for well over a century. The question of whether they are right, and whether they are even moral in these uncertain times during a global pandemic is one which divides governments, scientists and nations. Are vaccine passports ethical? Why should our governments have such extensive autonomy over our lives? Where is that line?

The most compelling reason for making vaccine passports mandatory before allowing entrance to events is also the most obvious: it would reduce the spread of COVID-19 and therefore should limit the number of deaths - potentially saving thousands of lives. Imagine if vaccine passports were the reason that your loved one survived this crisis. Surely you'd be in favour of them if that were the case? Professor Neil Ferguson, a member of the government advisory board SAGE, argued that it would be “understandable that we demand vaccination as a risk mitigation strategy”. Perhaps, to minimise the risk, the government ought to introduce COVID-19 vaccine passports which could be the difference between life and death.

Furthermore, some may think that we all have a moral duty to our wider community to get the vaccine and get these passports so that we can feel safe. Under the Human Rights Act, we have a right to life. It would therefore seem reasonable to suggest that the government, in turn, has the right to take steps, such as introducing vaccine passports, to ensure that our lives are protected. Moreover, the duty of health care workers must be considered. Wouldn’t you want to have peace of mind, knowing that your caregiver has been vaccinated, thereby ensuring your protection from a potentially deadly virus? Our healthcare system should not be causing harm to anyone, especially not to those in already vulnerable positions. It just isn’t ethical.

Having said all of that, vaccine passports do have a moral downside. They take away our right to bodily autonomy. As members of a democracy, we have a right to choose, and so we should be standing up for our right to choose what we do with our bodies. Vaccinated or not, it is not fair, in the most fundamental sense of the word, to limit people’s freedoms based on their personal choices. Better, less intrusive ways to mitigate risk would perhaps be to require negative COVID-19 tests before entry into an event, rather than labelling all those who have chosen not to be vaccinated as ‘different’.

In addition to this, vaccine passports have the potential to do irreparable damage to already vast inequality gaps. There has been hesitancy in vaccine uptake in certain groups and communities, such as poorer socio-economic groups and ethnic minorities, due to worries over health or religious issues, and also reduced access to vaccines for these groups. In fact, as of February 2021, the rates in COVID-19 vaccinations in the over 80s varied hugely by ethnicity, with the rate being 42.5% among white people, but a mere 20.5% in their black counterparts. This worrying disparity makes it clear that vaccine passports would only further disadvantage certain groups, including in situations like the job market. On a more global scale, the BMJ estimates that 'nearly 25% of the world’s population may not have access to a vaccine until at least 2022’. If this proved to be true, the vaccinated population would have undeniable advantages over that 25% for potentially another year. The potent effect that vaccine passports could have on widening the global inequality divide makes it clear introducing them would be an unethical choice.

Despite the potential for vaccine passports to save thousands of lives, they fundamentally undermine our right, as members of a democracy, to choose. To choose what to do with our bodies. To choose where we can go and what we can do. To set the precedent for governments being able to control our actions for the long term would be a dangerous thing indeed. It is important to note that vaccines themselves are not inherently harmful, but the potential discrimination that vaccine passports could be responsible for makes them morally unjustifiable. Therefore, although there would undoubtedly be many benefits to the introduction of vaccine passports, these are certainly outweighed by the ethical and moral disadvantages.

Sources: