Search

Introduced in 2007 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the intervention ladder has become an influential tool in bioethics and public health policy for weighing the justification for interventions and for weighing considerations of intrusiveness and proportionality. However, while such considerations are critical, in its focus on these factors, the ladder overemphasises the role of personal responsibility and the importance of individual behaviour change in public health interventions. Through a study of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine mandates among healthcare workers, this paper investigates how the ladder obscures systemic factors such as the social determinants of health. In overlooking these factors, potentially effective interventions are left off the table and the intervention ladder serves to divert attention away from key issues in public health. This paper, therefore, proposes a replacement for the intervention ladder-the intervention stairway. By broadening the intervention ladder to include systemic factors, the stairway ensures relevant interventions are not neglected merely due to the framing of the issue. Moreover, it more accurately captures factors influencing individual health as well as allocations of responsibility for improving these factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Mandatory school vaccination policies with exclusion of unvaccinated students can be a powerful tool in ensuring high vaccination rates. Some parents may object to mandatory vaccination policies, claiming exemptions based on medical, religious, or philosophical reasons. Individual schools, school systems, or local or regional governments have different policies with respect to whether, and what kind of, exemptions may be allowed. In the setting of the current pandemic, questions regarding the acceptability of exemptions have resurfaced, as schools and local governments struggle with how to safely return children to school. Anticipating that school attendance will be facilitated by the development of a vaccine, school systems will face decisions about whether to mandate vaccination and whether to permit exemptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics promulgates policy favoring the elimination of nonmedical exemptions generally in schools. This discussion considers whether schools should eliminate nonmedical exemptions to vaccination as proposed in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy, ultimately concluding that broad elimination of exemptions is not justified and advocating a more nuanced approach that encourages school attendance while promoting vaccination and broader public health goals., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article is an ethical and legal reflection about the current trend of parents to refuse vaccination of their children under a legal regime that establishes mandatory use of certain vaccines. We analyze the main arguments used by parents to refuse obligatory vaccination, i.e., the fear of the negative effects that vaccination may have on the child; the violation of the "right to autonomy"; religious or pseudo-philosophical beliefs; and the resistance to the State intervention in personal or family mat ters. Therefore, this statement implies a necessary ethical analysis of childhood vaccination. Finally, it will be discussed the responsibility of parents and the State -the health authority- in the care of mi nors. Vaccination is a benefit for both the inoculated and the community, the best preventive policy. At the same time, it is considered a complex case that demands a profound debate, whose purpose should be the transition from an apparent conflict between parents and the State, to convergence for the care of minors. In other words, it is emphasized the fact that parents, beyond the fulfillment of a heterogeneous normative duty, must act motivated by voluntary adherence to the best interest of the child and the community.

Recent reports in Australia have suggested that some medical practitioners are refusing to treat children who have not been vaccinated, a practice that has been observed in the USA and parts of Europe for some years. This behaviour, if it is indeed occurring in Australia, has not been supported by the Australian Medical Association, although there is broad support for medical practitioners in general having the right to conscientious objection. This paper examines the ethical underpinnings of conscientious objection and whether the right to conscientious objection can be applied to the refusal to treat unvaccinated children. The implications of such a decision will also be discussed, to assess whether refusal to treat unvaccinated children is ethically justifiable. The best interests of both existing and new patients are crucially important in a doctor's practice, and the tension between these two groups of patients are contemplated in the arguments below. It is argued that on balance, the refusal to treat unvaccinated children constitutes unjustified discrimination., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To explain vaccination refusal in a sample of Australian parents., Design: Qualitative design, purposive sampling in a defined population., Setting: A geographically bounded community of approximately 30 000 people in regional Australia with high prevalence of vaccination refusal., Participants: Semi structured interviews with 32 non-vaccinating parents: 9 fathers, 22 mothers and 1 pregnant woman. Purposive sampling of parents who had decided to discontinue or decline all vaccinations for their children. Recruitment via local advertising then snowballing., Results: Thematic analysis focused on explaining decision-making pathways of parents who refuse vaccination. Common patterns in parents' accounts included: perceived deterioration in health in Western societies; a personal experience introducing doubt about vaccine safety; concerns regarding consent; varied encounters with health professionals (dismissive, hindering and helpful); a quest for 'the real truth'; reactance to system inflexibilities and ongoing risk assessment., Conclusions: We suggest responses tailored to the perspectives of non-vaccinating parents to assist professionals in understanding and maintaining empathic clinical relationships with this important patient group., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Vaccination programs generate direct protection, herd protection and, occasionally, side effects, distributed over different age groups. This study elicits the general public's view on how to balance these outcomes in funding decisions for vaccines. We performed an optimal design discrete choice experiment with partial profiles in a representative sample (N = 1499) of the population in the United Kingdom in November 2016. Using a panel mixed logit model, we quantified, for four different types of infectious disease, the importance of a person's age during disease, how disease was prevented-via direct vaccine protection or herd protection-and whether the vaccine induced side effects. Our study shows clear patterns in how the public values vaccination programs. These diverge from the assumptions made in public health and cost-effectiveness models that inform decision-making. We found that side effects and infections in newborns and children were of primary importance to the perceived value of a vaccination program. Averting side effects was, in any age group, weighted three times as important as preventing an identical natural infection in a child whereas the latter was weighted six times as important as preventing the same infection in elderly aged 65-75 years. These findings were independent of the length or severity of the disease, and were robust across respondents' backgrounds. We summarize these patterns in a set of preference weights that can be incorporated into future models. Although the normative significance of these weights remains a matter open for debate, our study can, hopefully, contribute to the evaluation of vaccination programs beyond cost-effectiveness., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify the perception of medical students and physicians on the importance of vaccination and the risks of vaccine refusal., Methods: Cross-sectional study with application of questionnaires about vaccines, vaccine refusal and its repercussions on public and individual health. A sample of 92 subjects was selected from a private medical school: group 1 (53 students from first to fourth grades) and group 2 (39 physicians). Data collected were tabulated in the Microsoft Excel Program and analyzed by Fisher's exact test., Results: Both groups considered the National Immunization Program reliable and recognized the importance of vaccines, but 64.2% of students and 38.5% of physicians are unaware of the vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in the basic immunization schedule. Most of the interviewees had a personal vaccine registry, but not all had received the 2015 influenza vaccine. Both groups had known people who refused vaccines for themselves or for their children (respectively, 54.7 and 43.3% of students and 59.0 and 41.0% of physicians). The total of 48.7% of physicians had already assisted vaccine refusers. Appointed causes of vaccine refusal were: fear of adverse events, philosophical and religious reasons and lack of knowledge about severity and frequency of diseases. Ethical aspects of vaccine refusal and legal possibilities of vaccine requirements for children are not consensus., Conclusions: Medical students and doctors are not adequately vaccinated and have queries about the vaccination schedule, vaccine safety and vaccine refusal. Improving these professionals' knowledge is an important strategy to maintain vaccine coverage and address vaccine refusal ethically.

While all states in the United States require certain vaccinations for school attendance, all but three allow for religious exemptions to receiving such vaccinations, and 18 allow for exemptions on the basis of other deeply held personal beliefs. The rights of parents to raise children as they see fit may conflict with the duty of the government and society to protect the welfare of children. In the U.S., these conflicts have not been settled in a uniform and consistent manner. We apply a test that provides a concrete and formal rubric to evaluate such conflicts. For some vaccinations, based on the individual medical characteristics of the disease and the risks of being unvaccinated, the test would suggest that permitting conscientious exemptions is ethical. However, for vaccinations protecting against other diseases that are more severe or easily transmitted, the test would suggest that the federal government may ethically impose laws that deny such exemptions., (Copyright 2018 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Since the last century, vaccination has been one of the most important tools we possess for the prevention and elimination of disease. Yet the tremendous gains from vaccination are now threatened by a growing hesitance to vaccinate based on a variety of concerns or objections. Geographic clustering of some families who choose not to vaccinate has led to a number of well-publicized outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Of note is that some of these outbreaks are centered within some Christian religious groups that increasingly avoid vaccination due to moral concerns, fears about safety, or doubts about the necessity of vaccines. We argue from the perspective of Catholic social teaching on why there is a moral duty to vaccinate.

Background: Increasingly, the experiences and perceptions of parents who decline vaccination are the subject of investigation. However, the experiences of clinicians who encounter these parents in the course of their work has received little academic attention to date. This study aimed to understand the challenges faced and strategies used when general practitioners and immunising nurses encounter parents who choose not to vaccinate their children., Methods: Primary care providers were recruited from regions identified through the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR) as having higher than national average rates of registered objection to childhood vaccination. Interviews began with an exploration of provider experiences with parents who accept, are hesitant towards, and who decline vaccination. Participants were asked specifically about how they addressed any difficulties they encountered in their interactions. Thematic analysis focused on encounters with parents - challenges and strategies., Results: Twenty-six general practitioners (GPs), community and practice nurses (PNs) were interviewed across two regions in NSW, Australia. Providers' sense of professional identity as health advocates and experts became conflicted in their encounters with vaccine objecting parents. Providers were dissatisfied when such consultations resulted in a 'therapeutic roadblock' whereby provider-parent communication came to a standstill. There were mixed views about being asked to sign forms exempting parents from vaccinating their children. These ranged from a belief that completing the forms rewarded parents for non-conformity to seeing it as a positive opportunity for engagement. Three common strategies were employed by providers to navigate through these challenges; 1) to explore and inform, 2) to mobilise clinical rapport and 3) to adopt a general principle to first do no harm to the therapeutic relationship., Conclusions: Many healthcare providers find consultations with vaccine objecting parents challenging and some, particularly more experienced providers, employ successful strategies to address this. Primary care providers, especially those more junior, could benefit from additional communication guidance to better the outcome and increase the efficiency of their interactions with such parents.

One of the most divisive issues in pediatrics today concerns the proper response by pediatricians to parents who refuse routine childhood immunizations for their children. Many pediatricians refuse to care for such families. Others continue to provide care and continue to try to convince parents that the benefits of immunizations far outweigh the risks. Two of the most powerful arguments in favor of dismissing such parents are as follows: (1) their refusal suggests such lack of trust in the physicians' recommendations that it undermines the basis for a meaningful physician-patient-parent relationship; and (2) unimmunized children present an unacceptable risk to other children in the physicians' waiting rooms. This article examines those arguments., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

A recent measles outbreak in the United States was linked to a single source, yet it spanned eighteen jurisdictions and infected 121 people. 1 Forty-seven states currently allow legal exemption from vaccination on religious grounds, eighteen of which also allow it on philosophical grounds. 2 Recent research usually accepts a fundamental right to vaccine exemption and primarily seeks ways to protect herd immunity while also respecting that right, for example, by keeping the exemption available yet harder to procure or by imposing torts for infection-related injury. 3 We argue that when herd immunity is at risk, any moral claim to exemption from vaccination on conscientious, philosophical, or religious grounds is overridden. Our argument rests on an analogy to a series of situations in which a person puts others at risk through philosophically or religiously motivated choices. In these situations, intuitively, there is no claim-right to compromise the safety of others. Similarly, we propose, there is no claim-right to refuse vaccination, regardless of one's conscience, when refusal is sufficiently likely to seriously affect herd immunity and the safety of others. We also address several counterarguments. The lack of a claim-right to exemption when herd immunity is at risk does not mean, however, that it is always prudent for the state to force vaccination, or even that forcing vaccinations must be legal. Alternatives to forced vaccination may prove wiser and more conducive to high vaccination rates.

Thousands of U.S. parents choose to refuse or delay the administration of selected vaccines to their children each year, and some choose not to vaccinate their children at all. While most physicians continue to provide care to these families over time, using each visit as an opportunity to educate and encourage vaccination, an increasing number of physicians are choosing to dismiss these families from their practice unless they agree to vaccinate their children. This paper will examine this emerging trend along with the reasons given by those who advocate such an approach. I will argue that the strategy of refusing to allow families into a clinic unless they agree to vaccinate their children is misguided, and the arguments for doing so fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Such a strategy does not benefit the child or the health of the community, and may have a negative impact on both. Furthermore, some of the arguments in support of dismissal policies ignore the importance of professional obligation and appear to favor self-interest over the interest of the patient., (© 2015 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

Dealing with the continuously increasing rates of families wanting to either significantly delay or completely postpone their infant's vaccines has created an alarmingly untenable dilemma for the general pediatricians dealing with these families on a daily basis. Pediatricians must decide whether to continue to provide substandard care by foregoing many or most of the infant's highly recommended protective vaccines, or whether to dismiss from the practice the family who refuses vaccines. Much has been written about why they should retain these families, but this paper will discuss some reasonable rationales as to why nearly 40% of pediatricians choose dismissal of these families., (© 2015 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)