Correspondencia vacunación-inmunización como necesidad social y reto para la ciencia y la educación médica / Vaccination-immunization correspondence as a social need and challenge for science and medical education

Introducción: La vacunación constituye el arma preventiva más efectiva para las enfermedades trasmisibles que conoce la humanidad. Hacer que las vacunas aplicadas sean realmente inmunizantes resulta la responsabilidad de los profesionales de la atención primaria. Del mismo modo, es importante que se acepte, sin recelo, la vacunación, sobre todo en la situación epidemiológica actual. Objetivo: Describir las implicaciones sociales, económicas y éticas relacionadas con la existencia de vacunas teóricamente no inmunizantes. Métodos: Se emplearon los resultados de un programa de intervención educativa en edades pediátricas en el Policlínico 13 de marzo. Se utilizó la prueba de rangos con signo de Wilcoxon, con índice de confianza del 95 por ciento. Resultados: Inicialmente, predominó el nivel inadecuado de conocimiento, que luego mejoró significativamente. Se recuperaron 48 niños no vacunados y 29 vacunaciones no inmunizados. Conclusiones: No existe correspondencia entre las coberturas vacunales y la inmunización. Están instauradas, como correctas, falsas contraindicaciones para la vacunación. La intervención educativa fue efectiva, y se hizo patente la pertinencia de programas de pregrado y posgrado que perfeccionen la formación de los profesionales y la calidad en el desempeño profesional(AU)

Introduction: Vaccination is the most effective preventive weapon for communicable diseases known to humanity. It is the responsibility of primary health care professionals to ensure that the administered vaccines are truly immunizing. Likewise, it is important that vaccination be accepted without hesitations, especially in the current epidemiological situation. Objective: To describe the social, economic and ethical implications related to the existence of theoretically nonimmunizing vaccines. Methods: The results of an educational intervention program in pediatric ages at 13 de Marzo Policlinic were used. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used, with a confidence index of 95 percent. Results: Initially, an inadequate level of knowledge predominated, which later improved significantly. Forty-eight unvaccinated children and 29 unimmunized children recovered. Conclusions: There is no correspondence between vaccination coverage and immunization. False contraindications for vaccination are established as correct. The educational intervention was effective, while the relevance became evident for undergraduate and postgraduate programs to improve the training of professionals and the quality of professional performance(AU)

There are no in-principle ethical objections to controlled voluntary SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some authors have advocated a program of controlled voluntary infection (CVI) with SARS-CoV-2. Under CVI, during periods where the medical system is under capacity, volunteers from low-risk groups would be intentionally infected after giving informed consent, and then quarantined until they have developed immunity. Proponents claim that this could have benefits for society, such as building herd immunity and ensuring that critical workers won't be incapacitated during the peak of the infection. They also claim that this could have benefits for individuals, such as being safely exempted from lockdown measures and (for individuals who are likely to be infected anyway) ensuring that the infection happens under relatively less dangerous conditions. Some respond that CVI would unethical. Here, I argue that, while CVI may or may not be ill-advised for empirical reasons, there are no in-principle ethical objections to it (i.e., if CVI would work as well as its proponents think, it would be ethical to implement it). I present three arguments for this conclusion. The first is an argument from informed consent: informed consent to relevantly similar medical procedures renders performing these procedures permissible, so informed consent to CVI would render it permissible. The second is an argument from reasonable beneficence: it draws on recent work by Caspar Hare on relevantly similar choices to argue that CVI is permissible. The third is an argument from precedent: smallpox variolation was permissible, and CVI is relevantly similar to that, so CVI is permissible.

Global Perspectives on Immunization During Pregnancy and Priorities for Future Research and Development: An International Consensus Statement.

Immunization during pregnancy has been recommended in an increasing number of countries. The aim of this strategy is to protect pregnant women and infants from severe infectious disease, morbidity and mortality and is currently limited to tetanus, inactivated influenza, and pertussis-containing vaccines. There have been recent advancements in the development of vaccines designed primarily for use in pregnant women (respiratory syncytial virus and group B Streptococcus vaccines). Although there is increasing evidence to support vaccination in pregnancy, important gaps in knowledge still exist and need to be addressed by future studies. This collaborative consensus paper provides a review of the current literature on immunization during pregnancy and highlights the gaps in knowledge and a consensus of priorities for future research initiatives, in order to optimize protection for both the mother and the infant.

When Deeply Held Personal Beliefs Conflict with Collective Societal Norms.

This essay analyzes the conflicts that arise between an individual's deeply held beliefs and the collective norms of society. Sometimes these conflicts are framed in religious terms. The author argues that such a framing is too narrow and inappropriately puts the focus on a specific set of (largely Christian) beliefs about matters related to sexuality. This essay attempts to broaden the discussion in order to highlight the ways in which conflicts between individual beliefs and practices, on the one hand, and prevailing societal norms, on the other, create the tension that can lead to societal change.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires an ethically consistent health strategy.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to public health. The reasons are complex but linked inextricably to a lack of trust in vaccines, expertise and traditional sources of authority. Efforts to increase immunization uptake in children in many countries that have seen a fall in vaccination rates are two-fold: addressing hesitancy by improving healthcare professional-parent exchange and information provision in the clinic; and, secondly, public health strategies that can override parental concerns and values with coercive measures such as mandatory and presumptive vaccination. MAIN TEXT: It is argued that such conflicting, parallel approaches seriously risk undermining trust that is crucial for sustaining herd immunity. Although public health strategies can be ethically justified in limiting freedoms, a parent-centered approach seldom acknowledges how it is impacted by contemporaneous coercive measures. In addition, the clinical encounter is not well suited to helping parents consider the public dimensions of vaccination, despite these being important for trust formation and informed decision-making. Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy require more consistent engagement of parental and citizen views. Along with evidence-based information, debates need to be informed by ethical support that equips parents and professionals to respond to the private and public dimensions of vaccination in a more even-handed, transparent manner. CONCLUSION: Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy need to avoid simple reliance on either parental values or coercive public policies. To do this effectively requires increasing citizen engagement on vaccination to help inform a parent-centered approach and legitimize public policy measures. In addition, cultivating a more ethically consistent strategy means moving beyond the current silos of health ethics - clinical and public health ethics.

The Misfortunes of Moral Enhancement.

In Unfit for the Future, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu present a sophisticated argument in defense of the imperative of moral enhancement. They claim that without moral enhancement, the future of humanity is seriously compromised. The possibility of ultimate harm, caused by a dreadful terrorist attack or by a final unpreventable escalation of the present environmental crisis aggravated by the availability of cognitive enhancement, makes moral enhancement a top priority. It may be considered optimistic to think that our present moral capabilities can be successfully improved by means of moral education, moral persuasion, and fear of punishment. So, without moral enhancement, drastic restrictions on human freedom would become the only alternative to prevent those dramatic potential outcomes. In this article, I will try to show that we still have reason to be less pessimistic and that Persson & Savulescu's arguments are fortunately unconvincing.

Controversies in faith and health care.

Differences in religious faith-based viewpoints (controversies) on the sanctity of human life, acceptable behaviour, health-care technologies and health-care services contribute to the widespread variations in health care worldwide. Faith-linked controversies include family planning, child protection (especially child marriage, female genital mutilation, and immunisation), stigma and harm reduction, violence against women, sexual and reproductive health and HIV, gender, end-of-life issues, and faith activities including prayer. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and traditional beliefs have similarities and differences in their viewpoints. Improved understanding by health-care providers of the heterogeneity of viewpoints, both within and between faiths, and their effect on health care is important for clinical medicine, public-health programmes, and health-care policy. Increased appreciation in faith leaders of the effect of their teachings on health care is also crucial. This Series paper outlines some faith-related controversies, describes how they influence health-care provision and uptake, and identifies opportunities for research and increased interaction between faith leaders and health-care providers to improve health care.

Coercion and polio eradication efforts in Moradabad.

We introduce the problem of vaccine coercion as reported in Moradabad, India. We offer commentary and critical analysis on ethical complexities at the intersection of global public health and regional political strife and relate them to broader vaccine goals. We draw upon a historical example from malaria vaccine efforts, focusing specifically on ethical and health justice issues expressed through the use of coercion in vaccine administration. We suggest how coercion is indicative of failed leadership in public health and consider community-based collaborations as models for cultivating local investment and trust in vaccination campaigns and for success in global public health initiatives.

Gender based within-household inequality in childhood immunization in India: changes over time and across regions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite India's substantial economic growth in the past two decades, girls in India are discriminated against in access to preventive healthcare including immunizations. Surprisingly, no study has assessed the contribution of gender based within-household discrimination to the overall inequality in immunization status of Indian children. This study therefore has two objectives: to estimate the gender based within-household inequality (GWHI) in immunization status of Indian children and to examine the inter-regional and inter-temporal variations in the GWHI. DATA AND METHODS: The present study used households with a pair of male-female siblings (aged 1-5 years) from two rounds of National Family Health Survey (NFHS, 1992-93 and 2005-06). The overall inequality in the immunization status (after controlling for age and birth order) of children was decomposed into within-households and between-households components using Mean log deviation to obtain the GWHI component. The analysis was conducted at the all-India level as well as for six specified geographical regions and at two time points (1992-93 and 2005-06). Household fixed-effects models for immunization status of children were also estimated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Findings from household fixed effects analysis indicated that the immunization scores of girls were significantly lower than that of boys. The inequality decompositions revealed that, at the all-India level, the absolute level of GWHI in immunization status decreased from 0.035 in 1992-93 to 0.023 in 2005-06. However, as a percentage of total inequality, it increased marginally (15.5% to 16.5%). In absolute terms, GWHI decreased in all the regions except in the North-East. But, as a percentage of total inequality it increased in the North-Eastern, Western and Southern regions. The main conclusions are the following: GWHI contributes substantially to the overall inequality in immunization status of Indian children; and though the overall inequality in immunization status declined in all the regions, the changes in GWHI were mixed.

Managing scientific uncertainty in medical decision making: the case of the advisory committee on immunization practices.

This article explores the question of how scientific uncertainty can be managed in medical decision making using the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices as a case study. It concludes that where a high degree of technical consensus exists about the evidence and data, decision makers act according to a clear decision rule. If a high degree of technical consensus does not exist and uncertainty abounds, the decision will be based on a variety of criteria, including readily available resources, decision-process constraints, and the available knowledge base, among other things. Decision makers employ a variety of heuristic devices and techniques, thereby employing a pragmatic approach to uncertainty in medical decision making. The article concludes with recommendations for managing scientific uncertainty in medical decision making.

Childhood immunization: when physicians and parents disagree.

Persistent fears about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and whether immunization programs are still needed, have led a significant minority of parents to refuse vaccination. Are parents within their rights when refusing to consent to vaccination? How ought physicians respond? Focusing on routine childhood immunization, we consider the ethical, legal, and clinical issues raised by 3 aspects of parental vaccine refusal: (1) physician counseling; (2) parental decision-making; and (3) continuing the physician-patient relationship despite disagreement. We also suggest initiatives that could increase confidence in immunization programs.

Is it ethical for a medical practice to dismiss a family based on their decision not to have their child immunized?

The parents' decision not to have their child immunized stirs up much controversy in the public sector and in the healthcare arena. Much debate surrounds not just the parents' choice but also the practitioner's decision to refuse care based on their refusal. This article presents a common and increasing scenario faced in pediatric practices and explores the ethical implications that it poses for the healthcare provider.

Consent and public engagement in an era of expanded childhood immunisation.

Childhood immunisation programmes have seen well-heralded successes in disease control. An increasing number of scheduled vaccines, narrowing risk-benefit ratios and public attention to vaccine safety raise new questions about consent. We first explore the challenges that this highly dynamic environment poses for valid consent. Then, we broaden this discussion to wider public engagement by suggesting how the public - the bearers of vaccine risk and benefit - can be better involved in immunisation policy.