CASE: Vaccine Mandates for Employees and Customers

Professor Requirements：

For this paper, read the scenario presented below, take a position on this issue (ethical/unethical), and support your position using the three ethical frameworks taught in class (Chapter 3). More specifically, follow the ethical decision-making process outlined in the textbook (Chapter 2). Through this assignment, you should develop an argument in which your position on the issue is viewed in light of all three ethical frameworks.

This paper does not need to be written in the argumentative essay format; however, please include an introduction paragraph and clearly state your position in the first paragraph (ethical/unethical). Then proceed to walking through the seven-step ethical decision-making process that led you to that conclusion. I recommend that you use clear headings and subheadings to define each step of the ethical decision-making process. Don’t leave out any steps.

Step Four should include many alternatives. However, for the sake of word count, pick just your top two alternatives to walk through each of the three ethical frameworks in Step Five. Step Two should clearly state the reason(s) that this scenario has ethical implications; that statement does not need to be lengthy.

The paper must be 1,500 to 1,800 words (approximately 5 pages), typed, double-spaced, and in 12 point font (font will be Times New Roman or Arial; word count does not include cover page or references page). Some additional formatting requirements:

• Use 1” margins on all margins (top, bottom, left, and right)
• Use page numbers on the bottom right corner of every page (minus the coversheet)
• You are required to incorporate a minimum of three quality references into your paper. Use citations appropriately and according to APA style.
• Cite our textbook at least3 times.
• 3 references from the book and 3 references from 3 separate outsources

CASE: Vaccine Mandates for Employees and Customers

Background

In late 2019, the physician Li Wenliang of Wuhan, China, reported a series of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS‐like symptoms. In February 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the name of the disease causing the novel coronavirus outbreak—coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Soon after, on March 11, 2020, WHO declared a global pandemic. The disease spread rapidly, including millions of documented cases, with more serious cases leading to hospitalization for serious cardiovascular and respiratory complications.

In March 2019, the incidence and fatality rates of COVID-19 began to spike in the United States. These rates varied widely across states and localities, as did state and federal restrictions enacted to limit the spread of COVID-19 and “flatten the curve.”  Through early April, cases continued to spike, but by mid-April the curve started flattening.

As the pandemic persisted, debate over appropriate precautions intensified (e.g., social distancing, remote work, and use of personal protective equipment). One particularly contentious precaution concerned the use of facemasks. Debate over the use of masks varied from concerns over effectiveness to restrictions on induvial freedom. While airlines were relatively consistent in adopting facemask requirements in late April and early May 2020, major retailers were not. Still, in early May, a few major retailers (e.g., Costco, Menards) decided to require employees and customers to wear masks in their stores.

Fast forward to June 2020, and cases again began to spike—at a rate much higher than that experienced during the initial wave of cases in March. Consequently, the month of July saw a significant increase in the number of retailers requiring masks—approximately two months after those who imposed the mandate in early May. Indeed, early adopters of the mask mandate (stores like Costco and Menards) suffered lost business to competitors who waited until July to impose a mask mandate. In other words, the bottom line for early adopters suffered because of their decision.

As of late Summer 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. While some individuals were hesitant to receive the vaccine prior to this approval, over 30% of the U.S. population received one of the three vaccines with the highest rates among adults 65 year of age or older. Now, nearly 45% of the U.S. population has received one of these vaccines and many more are in the process of obtaining it. Despite modest vaccination rates and continued precautionary measures (i.e, masks, social distancing), the Delta variant emerged during summer and hospitalizations and positivity rates are increasing. With this recent event, businesses are requiring vaccination for employees. Some businesses are insisting customers also show proof of vaccine status.

Question to Consider

Is requiring employees and customers to be vaccinated ethical?

(Please write on the point of this is ethical!!)

Additional Additions:

1. Please read the whole chapter3 about the details of frameworks to fill this paper!!
2. Please read the details about how 7 steps of the decision-making processes to fill the paper!
3. Three ethical frameworks are:

the ethical framework of utilitarianism/the principle-based, or rights-based, framework of ethics/virtue-based framework

4. the 7 steps ethical decision-making process are: