Cited by 14Legal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 ChallengesVaccine Coverage and HesitancyMedical and Health Sciences Research

COVID-19 and Compulsory Vaccination: An Acceptable Form of Coercion?

Hurford, James E.·2022·The New Bioethics

Abstract

The paper considers whether the British Government could make receiving a COVID-19 vaccine effectively legally mandatory. After considering the position in English law, it considers the ethical position regarding involuntary vaccination, and concludes that while there is no legal impediment to such a requirement, it is ethically unsound.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/20502877.2021.2010441

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a medical setting, the law typically reflects clinical ethical principles, such as the common law's emphasis on individual autonomy and consent to bodily interference reflecting respect for persons.

    “In a medical setting, the law typically reflects clinical ethical principles. For example, the common law's emphasis on individual autonomy and consent to bodily interference reflects the ethical principle of respect for persons (Hurford 2022).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hurford, J. E.
Affiliations
Independent Researcher, London, UK
Corresponding author
Hurford, James E.
Venue
The New Bioethics
Published
2021-12-14
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
4-26
ISSN
  • 2050-2877 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-2885
OpenAlex
W4200063892
Cited by
14
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The New Bioethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Legal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccination, mandatory vaccination, legal coercion, vaccine ethics, English law, public health law
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Coercion, Humans, Vaccination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review