The Ethics of COVID-19 Immunity-based Licenses ("Immunity Passports")
Publication Date
6-9-2020
Document Type
Article
Organizational Units
Sturm College of Law
Keywords
Immunity passports, Immunity based licenses, Least restrictive alternative principle
Abstract
Chile, Germany, and the UK, among others, have indicated they will implement certifications that a person has contracted and recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or, in the future, has received a COVID-19 vaccine. Such policies have been discussed, but not implemented, in the US. However, if other countries require these certifications for entrance, the US may adopt them to enable travel, generating calls to use them more broadly.
Certifications of immunity are sometimes called “immunity passports” but are better conceptualized as immunity-based licenses. Such policies raise important questions about fairness, stigma, and counterproductive incentives but could also further individual freedom and improve public health.
Immunity licenses should not be evaluated against a baseline of normalcy, ie, uninfected free movement. Rather, they should be compared to the alternatives of enforcing strict public health restrictions for many months or permitting activities that could spread infection, both of which exacerbate inequalities and impose serious burdens. This Viewpoint presents a framework for analyzing the ethics of immunity licenses.
Recommended Citation
Govind Persad & Ezekiel J. Emanuel, The Ethics of COVID-19 Immunity-Based Licenses ("Immunity Passports"), 323 JAMA 2241 (2020).