{
  "abstract": "In their article, Smith and Mackie argue that vaccine mandates do not impair the voluntariness of informed consent, even when refusal entails significant consequences, such as the loss of employment.1 Drawing on Kiener’s interpersonal consenter–consentee justification, they claim that consent remains valid because third-party coercion does not vitiate voluntariness; what matters is whether the consent receiver wrongs the consent giver.2 Since clinicians neither impose nor collaborate in the relevant threats, consent obtained under a mandate—though motivated by pressure—remains voluntary. On this view, the tension between mandatory vaccination and informed consent dissolves once voluntariness is conceptualised within the clinical dyad.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Department of Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Studies, Pegaso University, Naples, Italy"
      ],
      "name": "Andrea Lavazza"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Informed consent under coercion: the limits of the interpersonal justification",
  "uid": "d1791db8-358a-5e51-8376-20fec429c96e"
}