[Imagine a new relationship of trust in medicine.] / Immaginare un nuovo rapporto di fiducia in medicina.

Informed consent for CoViD-19 vaccines can be considered a step that can help us focus on an increasingly burdensome problem for contemporary medicine: the difficult relationship of trust between citizens and academic medicine. Filling out forms full of useless information cannot replace the rebuilding of trust based on shared essential ethical principles. Trust needs to be protected by a transparent accountability, which can also decrease the threatening looming of lawsuits. Medicine must be safe, first and foremost, for the practitioner. He cannot practice it if he feels constantly in check, if the outcome of the treatment does not correspond to the wishes of those who request it.

The role of vaccine exemptions in the resurgence of measles.

ABSTRACT: Measles (rubeola) is a highly contagious, vaccine-preventable illness. Since 2014, a resurging trend has been noted in the incidence of measles, an illness once eliminated. Low vaccination rates contribute to its resurgence. The most compelling reason for low vaccination rates is the availability and prevalence of nonmedical exemptions (NME), which are primarily based on religious and philosophical beliefs. This article reviews the effect of NMEs in measles resurgence and the moral and legal implications of these exemptions. Clinicians should be aware of this trend and be ready to educate and evaluate the validity of NME requests.

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.

Eliminating Religious and Philosophical Exemptions: The Next Step in Ontario's Campaign against Vaccine Hesitancy.

Ontario families are required to provide up-to-date vaccination records as children begin schooling. Exemptions are allowed on both medical and nonmedical (religious or philosophical) grounds. In a recent report, Toronto Public Health (2019) called for an end to nonmedical exemptions - a proposal some allege infringes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to freedom of religion and conscience. This paper explores whether and to what extent vaccine refusal is protected under the Charter and argues that the elimination of nonmedical exemptions can be justified under Section 1 of the Charter. The issue of mandatory vaccination may take on special urgency in the coming months and years, if and when a vaccine is found for COVID-19.

Talk to Patients About: What's Wrong With Vaccine Exemptions?

In 2003, the Texas Legislature allowed parents to opt their children out of getting mandatory public school vaccines. Since then, exemptions have jumped more than 3,000%, to 72,743 statewide, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services. That number of exemptions threatens "herd" or "community" immunity for vaccine-preventable diseases.

Compulsory Vaccination and the Turkish Constitutional Court.

As vaccine hesitancy is on the rise around the world, apex courts in some countries have confronted the difficult task of striking a fair balance between individual rights and the common good. Against this background, the article discusses the compulsory vaccination cases heard by the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC). The TCC's case law illustrates that any interference with bodily integrity must first comply with the principle of lawfulness and its rulings addressed an important shortage of the current Turkish compulsory childhood vaccination policy. The article suggests that the principle of lawfulness in compulsory vaccination cases should not be taken lightly, even if it serves compelling public interests.

The Impact of Michigan's Nonmedical Vaccine Exemption Rule Change on Philosophical Exemption Rates.

To examine school factors associated with philosophical exemption rates among kindergarteners in Michigan from 2014, before Michigan's implementation of administrative rule 325.176 (12), to 2015, after the rule change revising the process for receiving nonmedical exemptions from school entry vaccines. The study explored the extent to which the factors-school type, geographical location, and socioeconomics-were associated with philosophical exemptions among kindergarteners before and after the rule change, using negative binomial regression and Spearman's Rho correlation. Philosophical exemptions decreased from 2014 to 2015 for all school types but remained highest among rural private schools. Urban private schools had the second highest exemptions with rates 2.22 times higher than those of urban public schools. Exemption rates among rural charter schools were double those of urban public schools, while rural public schools' rates were 1.22 times higher than those of urban public schools. Free and reduced school lunch eligibility had a strong inverse association with philosophical exemptions for both 2014 and 2015, with higher philosophical exemptions being associated with higher socioeconomic schools. Philosophical exemption rates decreased in the wake of the rule change; however, high philosophical exemptions, post rule change, were still associated with private schools, rural locations, and high socioeconomic status schools.

[Statement from the Immunization Committee of the Chilean Infectious Diseases Society in reference to vaccine refusal and mandatory policy on vaccination]. / Posición del Comité Consultivo de Inmunizaciones de la Sociedad Chilena de Infectología en relación a los cuestionamientos de las vacunas y su obligatoriedad.

Although vaccines have had a tremendous impact in public health they are questioned by certain groups that consider them unnecessary or unsafe and argue in favor of the right to decide to be vacci nated or not. However vaccines must have special considerations because unlike other medical deci sions, not vaccinating has consequences not only for the individual but also for other members of the community. Immunizing a high proportion of the population limits the circulation of an infectious agent attaining what is called community or herd immunity that protects the susceptible members of the group. For this reason many countries consider vaccination mandatory as a responsibility of every citizen. This committee agrees with this view but thinks other strategies should be implemented as well, such as special educational efforts for the public and parents addressing benefits and real risks of vaccinating. Also health care professionals should be trained in vaccines. The notification system for adverse events currently available should be improved and be more accessible. Persons truly affected by adverse events due to vaccination should receive on time responses and be offered psychological and financial support. Finally all stakeholders should make coordinated efforts to work together to deliver messages that answer concerns on vaccines and bring confidence back to the public.

Rechazo de los padres a la vacunación obligatoria en Chile. Desafíos éticos y jurídicos / Parental refusal to mandatory vaccination in Chile. Ethical and legal challenges

Resumen: Este artículo se presenta como una reflexión ética y jurídica acerca de la tendencia actual de los pa dres a rechazar la vacunación de sus hijos en un régimen jurídico que establece la obligatoriedad de determinadas vacunas. Se analizan los principales argumentos que los padres usan para rechazar las vacunaciones obligatorias, y, en concreto: el temor a los efectos negativos que la vacunación pueda provocar en el menor; la violación del "derecho a la autonomía"; las creencias religiosas o pseudo- filosóficas; la resistencia a la intervención del Estado en asuntos personales o familiares. De esto, nace un necesario análisis ético sobre la vacunación infantil. Finalmente, se discute la responsabilidad de los padres y del Estado (autoridad sanitaria) en el cuidado de los menores de edad. La vacunación es un beneficio tanto para el inoculado como para la comunidad, la mejor política preventiva. Al mismo tiempo, se configura como un caso complejo que demanda un debate profundo, cuyo fin debe ser el tránsito desde un aparente conflicto entre los padres y el Estado, a una convergencia por el cuidado de los menores de edad. En otros términos, se recalca el hecho de que los padres, más allá del cum plimiento de un deber normativo heterogéneo, deben actuar motivados por la adhesión voluntaria al bien del hijo y de la comunidad.

Abstract: 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.

Religious Vaccine Exemptions in Kindergartners: 2011-2018.

BACKGROUND: Forty-five states permit religious exemptions to school immunization laws; 15 allow personal belief exemptions. Updated religious exemption estimates are lacking, and it is unclear if personal belief exemption availability impacts religious exemption rates. We aimed to (1) update religious exemption trends in kindergartners, (2) compare states' proportions of kindergartners with religious exemptions by personal belief exemption availability, and (3) describe whether the proportion of kindergartners with religious exemptions changed in Vermont after it eliminated personal belief exemptions in 2016. METHODS: We analyzed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on exemptions for children entering kindergarten from 2011 to 2018, including 295 state-years in our final analysis. Using a quasi-binomial regression analysis, we compared mean proportions of kindergartners with religious exemptions in states allowing both nonmedical exemptions against states with religious exemptions only, adjusting for policy strength and school year. RESULTS: States with religious and personal belief exemptions were one-fourth as likely to have kindergartners with religious exemptions as states with religious exemptions only (risk ratio 0.25; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.38). After Vermont's policy change, the mean proportion of kindergartners with a religious exemption increased from 0.5% to 3.7%. States were significantly more likely to have kindergartners with religious exemptions during the 2017-2018 school year compared with the 2011-2012 school year (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Religious exemption rates appear to be associated with personal belief exemption availability, may be subject to a replacement effect on personal belief exemption elimination, and are increasing. Researchers and policy makers should confirm findings with individual-level studies and reconsider the purpose and nature of religious exemption laws.

Posición del Comité Consultivo de Inmunizaciones de la Sociedad Chilena de Infectología en relación a los cuestionamientos de las vacunas y su obligatoriedad / Statement from the Immunization Committee of the Chilean Infectious Diseases Society in reference to vaccine refusal and mandatory policy on vaccination

Resumen: A pesar del enorme impacto de las vacunas en la salud de la población, estas han sido y son objeto de cuestionamientos por grupos que las consideran innecesarias o inseguras y argumentan que las personas tienen el derecho a decidir sobre si estas deben ser administradas o no. Sin embargo el uso de vacunas tiene connotaciones distintas a otras decisiones en salud, ya que no vacunar impacta no solo al individuo, sino también a la comunidad que lo rodea. El inmunizar a un alto porcentaje de la población permite limitar la circulación de los agentes infecciosos, logrando la llamada inmunidad comunitaria que protege a los no vacunados por razones médicas o porque son muy pequeños. Por esta razón muchos países han definido las vacunas como obligatorias. Como Comité Consultivo de Inmunizaciones nos parece que esta estrategia es correcta sin embargo debe ser acompañada por una política de educación de la población y personal de salud sobre los beneficios y riesgos reales de las va cunas. Así mismo es necesario introducir mejoras en el sistema de notificación de reacciones adversas a vacunas haciéndolo más accesible. Adicionalmente se debe dar respuesta oportuna a los afectados por supuestas o reales reacciones a vacunas y en los casos de eventos adversos graves efectivamente asociados a vacunas. Entregar cobertura económica y acompañamiento. Finalmente es esencial la coordinación entre los diferentes actores y comunicadores para transmitir mensajes que generen confianza y respondan a las inquietudes de la población de hoy en día.

Abstract: Although vaccines have had a tremendous impact in public health they are questioned by certain groups that consider them unnecessary or unsafe and argue in favor of the right to decide to be vacci nated or not. However vaccines must have special considerations because unlike other medical deci sions, not vaccinating has consequences not only for the individual but also for other members of the community. Immunizing a high proportion of the population limits the circulation of an infectious agent attaining what is called community or herd immunity that protects the susceptible members of the group. For this reason many countries consider vaccination mandatory as a responsibility of every citizen. This committee agrees with this view but thinks other strategies should be implemented as well, such as special educational efforts for the public and parents addressing benefits and real risks of vaccinating. Also health care professionals should be trained in vaccines. The notification system for adverse events currently available should be improved and be more accessible. Persons truly affected by adverse events due to vaccination should receive on time responses and be offered psychological and financial support. Finally all stakeholders should make coordinated efforts to work together to deliver messages that answer concerns on vaccines and bring confidence back to the public.

What I Learned From the Antivaccine Movement.

The following is the runner-up submission from the third annual Section on Pediatric Trainees essay competition. This year's competition was informed by the 2018-2019 Section on Pediatric Trainees Advocacy Campaign: Advocacy Adventure, which empowered trainees to find their areas of passion, acquire and polish new skills, and organize advocacy efforts collaboratively. We asked writers to share experiences as physician advocates and were impressed with the broad variety of important topics submitted by trainees from around the country. This essay by Dr Ju describes advocating at the California state level for childhood immunization protections, which transformed her perspective of those who hold a different view. Along with the winning submission by Drs Panda and Garg that also appears in this issue, this piece is a wonderfully inspiring reminder that we are all well positioned to advocate for children in our roles as trainees and pediatricians.