**3.1 Ethical models in national health systems**

Behind the question of whether or not vaccination should be obligatory lies a much broader debate, one that refers to the ethical model of reference when making political decisions about public and community health issues. The first model is that of a normative ethics (a third-person ethics) that defends the legal obligatory nature of vaccination. The second model is that of virtue ethics (a first-person ethics), which defends the individual protagonist in making decisions about his or her health, taking into consideration the realization of the common good of society through the realization of the personal good. We propose that when making public health policy decisions in regard to Covid-19, it is possible to move from a normative ethics to a virtue ethics, through an ethics of personal responsibility [14].

The objective of a normative ethics, or a third-person ethics, is the search for and establishment of a series of rules or moral norms to be observed when carrying out certain individual actions. Human action is thus governed by norms that disregard the subject who acts and express his own existence. The object of investigation of this ethics is neither how one "should" live nor what would be the desirable lifestyle, but only whether a certain action is licit or illicit from the observation of an external judge: the "third person".

However, any conscious choice on the part of the individual, such as whether or not to be vaccinated against Covid-19, must be based on so-called " the first-person ethics", i.e., the search for the good of human life in its globality and complexity. Ethics would thus come to be configured as a kind of "discussion" on different lifestyles and different ways of living, and only secondarily on individual actions, with the aim of establishing what is the best life to lead and to desire.
