In the Wake of a Pandemic: Revisiting School Approaches to Nonmedical Exemptions to Mandatory Vaccination in the US.

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.

Combatting Covid-19. Or, "All Persons Are Equal but Some Persons Are More Equal than Others?"

Vaccines, when available, will prove to be crucial in the fight against Covid-19. All societies will face acute dilemmas in allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the form of vaccines for Covid-19. The author proposes The Value of Lives Principle as a just and workable plan for equitable and efficient access. After describing what the principle entails, the author contrasts the advantage of this approach with other current proposals such as the Fair Priority Model.

Vaccine mandates, value pluralism, and policy diversity.

Political communities across the world have recently sought to tackle rising rates of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, by implementing coercive immunization programs, or by making existing immunization programs more coercive. Many academics and advocates of public health have applauded these policy developments, and they have invoked ethical reasons for implementing or strengthening vaccine mandates. Others have criticized these policies on ethical grounds, for undermining liberty, and as symptoms of broader government overreach. But such arguments often obscure or abstract away from the diverse values that are relevant to the ethical justifications of particular political communities' vaccine-mandate policies. We argue for an expansive conception of the normative issues relevant to deciding whether and how to establish or reform vaccine mandates, and we propose a schema by which to organize our thoughts about the ways in which different kinds of vaccine-mandate policies implicate various values.

Content analysis of requests for religious exemptions from a mandatory influenza vaccination program for healthcare personnel.

OBJECTIVE: Having failed to achieve adequate influenza vaccination rates among employees through voluntary programmes, healthcare organisations have adopted mandatory ones. Some programmes permit religious exemptions, but little is known about who requests religious objections or why. METHODS: Content analysis of applications for religious exemptions from influenza vaccination at a free-standing children's hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA during the 2014-2015 influenza season. RESULTS: Twelve of 15 260 (0.08%) employees submitted applications requesting religious exemptions. Requestors included both clinical and non-clinical employees. All requestors voluntarily identified their religious affiliation, and most were Christian (n=9). Content analysis identified six categories of reasons used to justify an exemption: risks/benefits, ethical/political, lack of direct patient contact, providence, purity and sanctity of life. Individuals articulated reasons in 1-5 (mean 2.6) categories. The most frequently cited category (n=9) was purity; the vaccine and/or its mode of administration were impure, or receiving the vaccine would make the individual impure. Two individuals asserted that the vaccine contained cells derived from aborted human fetuses. Individuals (n=6) also volunteered information supporting the sincerity of their beliefs including distress over previous vaccination and examples of behaviour consistent with their specific objection or their general religious commitment. All requests were approved. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 0.1% of employees requested religious exemptions. Partnering with religious leaders and carefully correcting erroneous information may help address requestors' concerns.

Not a matter of parental choice but of social justice obligation: Children are owed measles vaccination.

This article presents arguments that reframe the discussion on vaccination ethics. The correct starting point for discussions on vaccination ethics is not what society owes parents, but rather what society owes children. Drawing on the justice theory of Powers and Faden, two conclusions are defended by presenting and defending a set of arguments. First, a just society is obligated to protect its children against serious vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles through adequate levels of vaccination. Second, this obligation of the just society rests on identifiable individuals and institutions: parents, healthcare professionals, government, and vaccine producers have important obligations in this regard. This removes vaccination out of the realm of individual or parental discretion, and situates it in the realm of societal obligation. Children are owed vaccination, society is obligated to provide it. If parents cannot or will not provide it, society ought to respond.

Ethical issues related to human papillomavirus vaccination programs: an example from Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine was introduced in Bangladesh through the arrangement of a demonstration project in Gazipur district in 2016, targeting grade five female students and non-school going girls (age range 10-12 years). HPV vaccination is expected to be eventually included in the nationwide immunization program if the demonstration project is successful. However, introduction and implementation of such a vaccination program raises various ethical concerns. This review paper illustrates a step by step assessment of the ethical concerns surrounding the HPV vaccination implementation in Bangladesh considering specific elements in administering and conducting the program as well as the intended results. Policy-makers, vaccine implementers, vaccine recipients, and an ethics specialist in Bangladesh were interviewed. Electronic database and websites have also been reviewed for relevant published literature and government statements. This program imparted inadequate knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer to the recipients and participants. There was lack of autonomous and informed choice of the girls and their parents about taking the vaccine. The program did not have any follow-up plan for the adverse effects in the long run. The impact of a female-only strategy in the larger societal context was overlooked. There was lack of awareness among the implementers about safeguarding the ethical issues pertaining to HPV vaccination. CONCLUSION: Adolescent health education imparted in the scope of the vaccination program should contain adequate information about HPV, its mode of transmission, risk factors along with the importance of secondary prevention despite primary prevention. Adolescent boys should be given HPV related health education as well. The right of making informed choice should be appreciated and respected. More ethical discussion and debate should be done among the public health professionals of Bangladesh in order to increase awareness about ethical issues related to human health.

Mandatory influenza vaccination for all healthcare personnel: a review on justification, implementation and effectiveness.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As healthcare-associated influenza is a serious public health concern, this review examines legal and ethical arguments supporting mandatory influenza vaccination policies for healthcare personnel, implementation issues and evidence of effectiveness. RECENT FINDINGS: Spread of influenza from healthcare personnel to patients can result in severe harm or death. Although most healthcare personnel believe that they should be vaccinated against seasonal influenza, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that only 79% of personnel were vaccinated during the 2015-2016 season. Vaccination rates were as low as 44.9% in institutions that did not promote or offer the vaccine, compared with rates of more than 90% in institutions with mandatory vaccination policies. Policies that mandate influenza vaccination for healthcare personnel have legal and ethical justifications. Implementing such policies require multipronged approaches that include education efforts, easy access to vaccines, vaccine promotion, leadership support and consistent communication emphasizing patient safety. SUMMARY: Mandatory influenza vaccination for healthcare personnel is a necessary step in protecting patients. Patients who interact with healthcare personnel are often at an elevated risk of complications from influenza. Vaccination is the best available strategy for protecting against influenza and evidence shows that institutional policies and state laws can effectively increase healthcare personnel vaccination rates, decreasing the risk of transmission in healthcare settings. There are legal and ethical precedents for institutional mandatory influenza policies and state laws, although successful implementation requires addressing both administrative and attitudinal barriers.

The Public Health Impact of the So-Called "Fluad Effect" on the 2014/2015 Influenza Vaccination Campaign in Italy: Ethical Implications for Health-Care Workers and Health Communication Practitioners.

Seasonal influenza, causing complications, hospitalizations and deaths, generates a serious socio-economic burden, especially among elderly and high-risk subjects, as well as among adult individuals. Despite the availability and active free-of charge offer of influenza vaccines, vaccine coverage rates remain low and far from the target established by the Ministry of Health. Notwithstanding their effectiveness, vaccines are victims of prejudices and false myths, that contribute to the increasing phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy and loss of confidence. Media and, in particular, new media and information and communication technologies (ICTs) play a major role in disseminating health-related information. They are extremely promising devices for delivering health education and promoting disease prevention, including immunization. However, they can also have a negative impact on population's health attitudes and behaviors when channeling wrong, misleading information. During the 2014/2015 influenza vaccination campaign, the report of four deaths allegedly caused by administration of an adjuvanted influenza vaccine, Fluad - the so-called "Fluad case" - received an important media coverage, which contributed to the failure of the vaccination campaign, dramatically reducing the influenza vaccine uptake. In the extant literature, there is a dearth of information concerning the effect of the "Fluad case". The current study aims at quantifying the impact of the "Fluad effect" at the level of the Local Health Unit 3 (LHU3) ASL3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy. Ethical implications for health-care workers and health communication practitioners are also envisaged.

Ebola vaccine development plan: ethics, concerns and proposed measures.

BACKGROUND: The global interest in developing therapies for Ebola infection management and its prevention is laudable. However the plan to conduct an emergency immunization program specifically for healthcare workers using experimental vaccines raises some ethical concerns. This paper shares perspectives on these concerns and suggests how some of them may best be addressed. DISCUSSION: The recruitment of healthcare workers for Ebola vaccine research has challenges. It could result in coercion of initially dissenting healthcare workers to assist in the management of EVD infected persons due to mistaken beliefs that the vaccine offers protection. It could also affect equity and justice. For example, where people who are not skilled health care professionals but who provide care to patients infected with Ebola (such as in home care settings) are not prioritized for vaccination. The possibility of study participants contracting Ebola infection despite the use of experimental vaccine, and the standard of care they would receive, needs to be addressed clearly, transparently and formalized as part of the ethics review process. Future access to study products in view of current status of the TRIPS agreement needs to be addressed. Finally, broad stakeholder engagement at local, regional and international levels needs to be promoted using available communication channels to engage local, regional and international support. These same concerns are applicable for current and future epidemics. Successful Ebola vaccine development research requires concerted efforts at public dialogue to address misconceptions, equity and justice in participant selection, and honest discussions about risks, benefits and future access. Public dialogue about Ebola vaccine research plans is crucial and should be conducted by trusted locals and negotiated between communities, researchers and ethics committees in research study sites.

Ethical Challenges in School-Based Immunization Programs for Adolescents: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated ethical issues in school-based immunization programs for adolescents and how they are addressed. METHODS: We used qualitative methods and an ethnographic approach to observe 9 secondary schools on immunization days in South Australia in 2011; concurrently, we conducted 9 focus groups with female secondary school students, 6 semistructured interviews with parents, and 10 interviews with nurses and teachers. We explored ethical challenges from the perspective of these groups. RESULTS: We identified ethical challenges for the delivery of adolescent immunization in a school-based setting in 3 main areas: informed consent, restrictions on privacy, and harm to students in the form of fear and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: We found areas in which the design and delivery of school-based immunization programs can be improved. Information about immunization should be provided in ways that are appropriate to young people and their parents, and privacy protections should be enhanced when possible. Involving young people in the design and delivery of programs would assist with making these improvements.

Adding justice to the clinical and public health ethics arguments for mandatory seasonal influenza immunisation for healthcare workers.

Ethical considerations from both the clinical and public health perspectives have been used to examine whether it is ethically permissible to mandate the seasonal influenza vaccine for healthcare workers (HCWs). Both frameworks have resulted in arguments for and against the requirement. Neither perspective resolves the question fully. By adding components of justice to the argument, I seek to provide a more fulsome ethical defence for requiring seasonal influenza immunisation for HCWs. Two critical components of a just society support requiring vaccination: fairness of opportunity and the obligation to follow democratically formulated rules. The fairness of opportunity is informed by Rawls' two principles of justice. The obligation to follow democratically formulated rules allows us to focus simultaneously on freedom, plurality and solidarity. Justice requires equitable participation in and benefit from cooperative schemes to gain or profit socially as individuals and as a community. And to be just, HCW immunisation exemptions should be limited to medical contraindications only. In addition to the HCWs fiduciary duty to do what is best for the patient and the public health duty to protect the community with effective and minimally intrusive interventions, HCWs are members of a just society in which all members have an obligation to participate equitably in order to partake in the benefits of membership.

Informed consent for HPV vaccination: a relational approach.

The aim of this study was to explore the relational aspects of the consent process for HPV vaccination as experienced by school nurses, based on the assumption that individuals have interests related to persons close to them, which is not necessarily to be apprehended as a restriction of autonomy; rather as a voluntary and emotionally preferred involvement of their close ones. Thirty Swedish school nurses were interviewed in five focus groups, before the school based vaccination program had started in Sweden. The empirical results were discussed in light of theories on relational autonomy. The school nurses were convinced that parental consent was needed for HPV vaccination of 11-year-old girls, but problems identified were the difficulty to judge when a young person is to be regarded as autonomous and what to do when children and parents do not agree on the decision. A solution suggested was that obtaining informed consent in school nursing is to be seen as a deliberative process, including the child, the parents and the nurse. The nurses described how they were willing strive for a dialogue with the parents and negotiate with them in the consent process. Seeing autonomy as relational might allow for a more dialogical approach towards how consent is obtained in school based vaccination programs. Through such an approach, conflicts of interests can be made visible and become possible to deal with in a negotiating dialogue. If the school nurses do not focus exclusively on accepting the individual parent's choice, but strive to engage in a process of communication and deliberation, the autonomy of the child might increase and power inequalities might be reduced.

Ethical considerations of universal vaccination against human papilloma virus.

BACKGROUND: From an epidemiological perspective, the practice of universal vaccination of girls and young women in order to prevent human papilloma virus (HPV) infection and potential development of cervical cancer is widely accepted even though it may lead to the neglect of other preventive strategies against cervical cancer. DISCUSSION: It is argued that removing the deterrent effect--the fear of developing cancer--could encourage teenage sex. This paper reflects on the ethical legitimacy of the universal vaccination of girls and young women against HPV infection, especially regarding safety issues, the need to vaccinate people who have opted to abstain from sex, the presumption of early onset of sexual relations, the commercial interests of the companies that manufacture the vaccine, and the recommendation of universal vaccination in males. SUMMARY: Based on the aforementioned information, we believe that the universal vaccination against HPV in young women is acceptable from an ethical point of view, given the medical advantages it presents.

The sexual ethics of HPV vaccination for boys.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections. It is a leading cause of cervical cancer in women but the virus is increasingly being linked to several other cancers in men and women alike. Since the introduction of safe and effective but also expensive vaccines, many developed countries have implemented selective vaccination programs for girls. Some however argue that these programs should be expanded to include boys, since (1) HPV constitutes non-negligible health risks for boys as well and (2) protected boys will indirectly also protect girls. In this paper we approach this discussion from an ethical perspective. First, on which moral grounds can one justify not reimbursing vaccination for the male sex? We develop an ethical framework to evaluate selective vaccination programs and conclude that, in the case of HPV, efficiency needs to be balanced against non-stigmatization, non-discrimination and justice. Second, if vaccination programs were to be expanded to boys as well, do the latter then also have a moral duty to become immunized? Two arguments in favor of such a moral duty are well known in vaccination ethics: the duty not to harm others and to contribute to the public good of public health. However, we argue that these are not particularly convincing in the context of HPV. In contrast, we believe a third, more powerful but also more controversial argument is possible. In our view, the sexual mode of transmission of HPV constitutes an additional reason to believe that boys in fact may have a moral obligation to accept vaccination.

Ethical considerations for vaccination programmes in acute humanitarian emergencies.

Humanitarian emergencies result in a breakdown of critical health-care services and often make vulnerable communities dependent on external agencies for care. In resource-constrained settings, this may occur against a backdrop of extreme poverty, malnutrition, insecurity, low literacy and poor infrastructure. Under these circumstances, providing food, water and shelter and limiting communicable disease outbreaks become primary concerns. Where effective and safe vaccines are available to mitigate the risk of disease outbreaks, their potential deployment is a key consideration in meeting emergency health needs. Ethical considerations are crucial when deciding on vaccine deployment. Allocation of vaccines in short supply, target groups, delivery strategies, surveillance and research during acute humanitarian emergencies all involve ethical considerations that often arise from the tension between individual and common good. The authors lay out the ethical issues that policy-makers need to bear in mind when considering the deployment of mass vaccination during humanitarian emergencies, including beneficence (duty of care and the rule of rescue), non-maleficence, autonomy and consent, and distributive and procedural justice.

Les urgences humanitaires entraînent une rupture des services de soins de santé essentiels et elles rendent souvent les communautés vulnérables dépendantes des organismes externes pour leurs soins. Dans les milieux où les ressources sont comptées, cela peut se produire sur fond d'extrême pauvreté, de malnutrition, d'insécurité, de faible niveau d'alphabétisation et d'infrastructures insuffisantes. Dans ces circonstances, fournir nourriture, eau et abri, tout en limitant les épidémies de maladies transmissibles, devient une préoccupation centrale. Lorsqu'il existe des vaccins sûrs et efficaces pour limiter les risques d'épidémies, leur éventuel déploiement est un facteur clé pour satisfaire les besoins sanitaires d'urgence. Les considérations éthiques sont essentielles pour se prononcer sur le déploiement de la vaccination. La distribution de vaccins en quantités limitées, les groupes cibles, les stratégies de vaccination, la surveillance et la recherche lors de situations d'urgence humanitaire graves impliquent tous des considérations éthiques souvent nées de la tension entre le bien individuel et le bien commun. Les auteurs exposent les questions éthiques que les décideurs doivent garder à l'esprit lorsqu'ils envisagent le déploiement d'une vaccination de masse pendant les urgences humanitaires, notamment la bénéficience (devoir de diligence et devoir d'assistance), la non-maléficience, l'autonomie et le consentement, ainsi que la justice de répartition et l'équité procédurale.

Las emergencias humanitarias causan el desplome de los servicios de atención de salud esenciales y, a menudo, provocan que la atención sanitaria de las comunidades vulnerables pase a depender de organismos externos. En entornos con recursos limitados esto puede darse en un contexto de pobreza extrema, desnutrición, inseguridad, bajos niveles de alfabetización e infraestructuras deficientes. Bajo estas circunstancias, suministrar alimentos, agua y refugio, así como limitar la aparición de brotes de enfermedades transmisibles representan las principales preocupaciones. Cuando se dispone de vacunas eficaces y seguras para reducir el riesgo de aparición de brotes de enfermedades, la distribución potencial de las mismas constituye un factor clave en las situaciones de emergencia sanitaria. Las consideraciones éticas son fundamentales a la hora de decidir sobre la distribución de las vacunas. La asignación de vacunas con suministro limitado, los grupos destinatarios de las mismas, las estrategias de entrega, así como la monitorización y los estudios durante las emergencias humanitarias graves implican consideraciones éticas que, a menudo, derivan de un enfrentamiento entre el beneficio individual y el bien común. Los autores exponen los problemas éticos que los responsables políticos deben tener en cuenta a la hora de considerar cómo distribuir la vacunación masiva durante las emergencias humanitarias, lo cual incluye principios como la beneficencia (el deber de atención y la regla del rescate), la no maleficencia, la autonomía y el consentimiento, así como la justicia distributiva y procesal.