Use of experimental vaccines is ethically permissible during public health emergencies

Abstract

Smith and Emanuel's paper is timely and important [1]. Here I want to revisit and extend their analysis of the first bad argument regarding the use of experimental vaccines for COVID-19. My aims are two-fold. First, to show that the force of the Nuremberg argument stating that vaccination mandates violate the Nuremberg Code because COVID-19 vaccines are ‘experimental’ is merely emotional and rests on a false analogy. Second, to reclaim a neutral use of the term experimental –referring to a “lack of sufficient evidence for regular use in healthcare” [2]– to defend that vaccination with experimental vaccines (mandatory or not) during a public health emergency is permissible when it meets the criteria of sufficient evidence for use during a public health emergency together with other appropriate regulatory and ethical criteria.