Addiction vaccines: Constitutional, ethical, and practical implications of addressing drug use through immunization

Could society eradicate drug addiction through immunization? If so, would we implement policies to mandate inoculation, and if so, for what populations? With several pharmaceutical companies currently testing vaccines to address addiction to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and even tobacco, public health professionals need to evaluate the circumstances in which use of addiction vaccines is appropriate. As we consider how to include health in policies around addiction vaccines, we must take into account the constitutional, ethical, and practical implications that widespread use of addiction vaccines may have.

This presentation will explain the mechanics and clinical successes of addiction vaccines. The presenter will explore the implications of these vaccines for the treatment of addiction, including which populations may be targeted for immunization. The presenter will discuss the constitutional issues pertaining to use of addiction vaccines, such as search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, and equal protection. This will include a discussion of whether existing case law (e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts) would apply. Ethical considerations, including whether administration of a vaccine to prevent a non-communicable disease and to prevent an action that can have potential benefits is appropriate, will be examined.  The presenter will discuss practical implications, including whether addiction vaccines could hinder medical interventions, whether addiction vaccines can truly address underlying causes of addiction, and what mandates for these vaccines could signify for development of immunotherapies for other behaviors. In conclusion, the presenter will argue that the only acceptable use for addiction vaccines is when it is completely consensual.