Ali Awad wrote in the newspaper Al-Akhbar an article titled "Can Vaccination Be Mandated by Law?" in which he stated:
The "rapid" achievement in developing a "package" of vaccines against the COVID-19 virus collides with the question of individual freedom. A significant portion of the global population, in both developed and developing countries, associates vaccines with "global conspiracies." A recent study conducted by the University of Washington's School of Medicine revealed that only 52% of Americans are willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. This percentage is insufficient for achieving community immunity, rendering the vaccination process a waste of time. Unvaccinated individuals will continue to spread the virus, possibly in a mutated form that surpasses the immunity gained by those who received the vaccine. This division raises ethical questions worldwide, such as: How can one ethically compel individuals to receive a vaccine whose side effects have not been studied in the medium and long term? Can vaccination be mandated for individuals, or should personal freedom be respected?
According to medical ethics expert and founding director of the Salim El-Hoss Bioethics and Professionalism Program at the American University of Beirut Medical Center, Talia Araoui, the proposal for mandatory vaccinations "requires it to be issued by a trusted government, coupled with some accountability in case of non-compliance." However, the most important factor is "to explain the reasons behind such a decision from a scientific perspective." She stated, "Mandatory vaccination is a justified public health policy when ethical conditions are met, and it should be preceded by a balance between risks and benefits. Mandatory vaccination should only be considered if it is necessary and proportional to the public health objectives defined by legitimate public health authorities. This means that the ethical conditions for mandatory vaccination impose on the state the obligation to present citizens with a clear plan of goals, along with transparent evidence of the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing disease spread, protecting individuals, and alleviating the burden on the healthcare system. Additionally, there should be sufficient evidence of the vaccine's safety and availability." Araoui noted that "mandating vaccinations is not currently on the table in Lebanon, at least for now. Should this occur, there needs to be extensive discussion and consideration of ethical and public health issues."
Mandatory vaccination is a justified public health policy when ethical conditions are met. In several Western cities, since the outbreak of COVID-19, there have been multiple protests against requiring residents to wear masks, considering it a violation of personal freedom. Araoui pointed out that when scientists and researchers proposed social distancing as the only possible way to stop the virus's spread, they were the first to acknowledge that this might not be easy to implement in "free societies." She highlighted that neoliberal and populist leaders have dismissed measures aimed at reducing the pandemic's spread, while in other parts of the world, some countries found greater opportunities to control the pandemic through surveillance, curfews, and the imposition of emergencies than through calls for economic recovery. "What is common between both scenarios is the lust for power and the manipulation of the pandemic to support that lust, offering the false choice between public health and individual freedom." She clarified that "the real sacrifice involved in social distancing and stay-at-home orders is not merely an issue of individual freedom. The reality is that these measures can cause more hardship for some people than for others. For some, this hardship may manifest as a loss of income; for others, it may be the inability to visit their loved ones. Therefore, this is not just a matter of individual freedom versus social good, but rather an understanding that the two cannot be separated."
