Page 67 - Vaccines

Moral responsibilities

which have been even derived in ways which are even
more immorally compromised (eg. the adenovirus or viral
vectored vaccines Astra-Zeneca or Johnson and Johnson),
for the reasons explained. This conclusion seems to be in
harmony with that of the U.S. Bishops, which seems to be
more precise and more reliable than some other positions
which have been expressed.

j. A particular issue
There is a particular problem which has been highlighted
in recent months of certain people refusing to be vacci-
nated, perhaps for legitimate reasons, perhaps out of
unfounded or exaggerated fears. Where there is mere
“denial” of the reality of the gravity of the coronavirus
or of any other lethal disease, this rejection cannot be
justified; where there are health considerations which
may justify this response, it is to be investigated by expert
doctors whether one of the alternative vaccines may
provide a proper solution for the person in question.
Where those who refuse to be vaccinated are themselves
employed in the health services, clearly their refusal risks
placing very many other people in high danger of
contagion; hence, here the public authorities would be
justified in excluding them from working in structures
where patients and other medical personnel would be
endangered, on the basis of the principles of the common
good and of subsidiarity. Although a similar policy may
appear to be justified in other cases, outside of the
health-care services, other stringent provisions may be
sufficient to protect others and these should be used, if
possible. The decision of the Vatican City State to require
vaccination of all of its workforce, except where there are
medical factors which indicate otherwise, seems to be the

55