Search

Background: While employers are increasingly considering and implementing COVID-19 vaccination requirements, little is known about the reasons offered by employees seeking religious exemptions. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods analysis of all the requests for religious exemptions submitted during the initial implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination requirement at a single academic medical center in the United States. Results: Five hundred sixty-five (3.4%) employees requested religious exemptions. At least 305 (54.0%) requesters had job titles suggesting that they had direct patient contact. Four hundred ninety-nine (88.3%) of requesters self-identified as Christian, of whom 120 (21.2%) identified as Roman Catholic. Requesters offered 0 to 8 (mean 2.7) categories of reasons for their request. The most frequently stated reasons pertained to the use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development and manufacturing (382, 67.6%), interest in maintaining purity (221, 39.1%), or belief in divine healing (172, 30.4%). Some requesters also volunteered evidence of the sincerity of their beliefs including examples of their religious practices (116, 20.5%), other practices (66, 11.7%), and emotional states (32, 5.7%). One hundred fifty-two applications (26.9%) contained text copied without attribution, primarily from sample religious exemption request letters available on the Internet. Conclusions: Most requesters focused on the use of fetal cell lines in the development or manufacturing of the vaccines as the justification for their request. The development of vaccines that are not reliant on fetal cell lines may increase vaccination rates. Understanding reasons for religious exemption requests may inform vaccine education and vaccination policies.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many hospitals have added COVID-19-specific visitor restrictions to their routine visitor restrictions. These additional visitor restrictions are designed to reduce viral transmission, protect patients and staff, and conserve personal protective equipment. They typically exempt patients with disabilities and those who are dying. Consistent application of these policies may, however, be inequitable. We present the case of a single mother seeking an individual exemption to both a routine and a COVID-19 specific visitor restriction. One commentator focuses on the importance of clear and transparent processes for considering requests for exceptions. The other argues that disproportionate burdens may be mitigated in other ways and the policy maintained., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Nonpharmaceutical interventions to minimize the transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are necessary because we currently lack a vaccine or specific treatments. Healthcare facilities have adopted visitor restrictions and masking requirements. These interventions should be evaluated as public health measures, focusing on their efficacy, the availability of less-restrictive alternatives, and the minimization of the burdens and their balance with the benefits. These interventions, as well as exceptions, can be justified by the same analysis. For example, visitor restrictions are sound, as are exceptions for women in labor, adults with disabilities, minor children, and individuals who are dying. In implementing these policies, specific rules are preferable to general principles because they are more efficient and reduce possible bias. There should, however, be appeal mechanisms and retrospective review processes. Evaluating requests for medical exemptions to masking requirements is particularly difficult, given the prevalence of nonmedical objections, false claims of medical exemptions, and a lack of objective medical criteria. Requiring written statements by licensed healthcare providers that undergo subsequent substantive review may therefore be justified., (Copyright 2021 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)