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.

How Should Vaccine Campaigns Balance Need for Clear Communication Against Need for Timely Administration of Large-Scale Programs?

Limited understanding of public health disease prevention programs often leads to resistance, which ultimately results in low vaccine uptake. This article suggests how public health practitioners can improve public understanding of cervical cancer and HPV vaccination programs, which is key to improving health literacy, using culturally appropriate materials and approaches to boost public acceptance of vaccine programs.

Vaccination: Is There a Place for Penalties for Non-compliance?

The introduction of punitive measures to control outbreaks of measles in Europe has sparked debate and public protest about the ethical justification of penalties and exclusionary processes for non-immunisation. This article advances an ethics framework related to compulsory vaccination policies, which we use to analyse three case studies: of mandatory policies that are enforced by fines; of policies that require vaccination for the provision of social goods; and of community-led policies in which communities themselves decide how to enforce vaccination compliance. We report on contemporary, ongoing and past measures that have been used to increase vaccine uptake, consider their rationale and the related public responses, elaborate on socio-cultural and contextual influences, and discuss the ethical justification for mandatory vaccination. We argue for a measured approach that protects fundamental human rights to evidence-based information and medical counsel to support health decision making and that simultaneously raises awareness about the role of immunisation in protecting the wider community. We think more emphasis needs to be placed on immunisation as a means of promoting social good, reducing harm and protecting vulnerable groups.

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.

Vaccine Rejecting Parents' Engagement With Expert Systems That Inform Vaccination Programs.

In attempting to provide protection to individuals and communities, childhood immunization has benefits that far outweigh disease risks. However, some parents decide not to immunize their children with some or all vaccines for reasons including lack of trust in governments, health professionals, and vaccine manufacturers. This article employs a theoretical analysis of trust and distrust to explore how twenty-seven parents with a history of vaccine rejection in two Australian cities view the expert systems central to vaccination policy and practice. Our data show how perceptions of the profit motive generate distrust in the expert systems pertaining to vaccination. Our participants perceived that pharmaceutical companies had a pernicious influence over the systems driving vaccination: research, health professionals, and government. Accordingly, they saw vaccine recommendations in conflict with the interests of their child and "the system" underscored by malign intent, even if individual representatives of this system were not equally tainted. This perspective was common to parents who declined all vaccines and those who accepted some. We regard the differences between these parents-and indeed the differences between vaccine decliners and those whose Western medical epistemology informs reflexive trust-as arising from the internalization of countering views, which facilitates nuance.

La vacuna contra el virus del papiloma humano: estado de la cuestión, principio de proporcionalidad y consentimiento informado / The vaccine against human papilloma virus: state of the question, proportionality principle and informed consent / A vacina contra o virus do papiloma humano: situação da questão, princípio de proporcionalidade e consentimento informado

Entre los debates actuales en torno a las prácticas de vacunación, la vacuna contra el Virus de Papiloma Humano (VPH) formula diversos desafíos desde la bioética: por una parte, existen controversias en cuanto al perfil de eficacia y seguridad de las vacunas comercializadas, así como respecto de su costo-efectividad. Es evidente en estudios empíricos que el proceso de consentimiento informado no ofrece los elementos necesarios para que las pacientes y sus representantes legales puedan participar de forma significativa en el proceso de toma de decisiones en torno a la vacunación. El presente artículo presenta una revisión sobre el estado de la cuestión, ofrece un análisis desde la bioética a partir del principio de proporcionalidad y el método deliberativo-sincrético y sugiere algunos aportes para optimizar el proceso de consentimiento informado para la vacuna contra el VPH.

Within the current discussions on immunization practices, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) made various challenges from bioethics: firstly, there are controversies regarding the efficacy and safety profile of marketed vaccines, and with respect to their cost-effectiveness. Around the discussion is evident in empirical studies that the informed consent process does not provide the necessary elements for the patients and their legal representatives can participate meaningfully in the process of making decisions about vaccination. This article presents an overview of the status of the issue, with an analysis from bioethics from the principle of proportionality and the deliberative syncretic method and suggests some input to optimize the process of informed consent for the HPV vaccine.

Entre os debates atuais em torno das práticas de vacinação, a vacina contra o vírus do Papiloma Humano (HPV) formula diversos desafios a partir da bioética: por uma parte, existem controvérsias quanto ao perfil de eficácia e segurança das vacinas comercializadas, assim como a respeito de seu custo-efetividade. É evidente em estudos empíricos que o processo de consentimento informado não oferece os elementos necessários para que as pacientes e seus representantes legais possam participar de forma significativa no processo de tomada de decisões em torno da vacinação. O presente artigo apresenta uma revisão sobre a situação da questão, oferece uma análise a partir da bioética, tendo como base o princípio da proporcionalidade e o método deliberativo-sincrético e sugere algumas contribuições para otimizar o processo de consentimento informado para a vacina contra o HPV.

The Social Value Of Vaccination Programs: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness.

In the current global environment of increased strain on health care budgets, all medical interventions have to compete for funding. Cost-effectiveness analysis has become a standard method to use in estimating how much value an intervention offers relative to its costs, and it has become an influential element in decision making. However, the application of cost-effectiveness analysis to vaccination programs fails to capture the full contribution such a program offers to the community. Recent literature has highlighted how cost-effectiveness analysis can neglect the broader economic impact of vaccines. In this article we also argue that socioethical contributions such as effects on health equity, sustaining the public good of herd immunity, and social integration of minority groups are neglected in cost-effectiveness analysis. Evaluations of vaccination programs require broad and multidimensional perspectives that can account for their social, ethical, and economic impact as well as their cost-effectiveness.

What is the responsibility of national government with respect to vaccination?

Given the ethical aspects of vaccination policies and current threats to public trust in vaccination, it is important that governments follow clear criteria for including new vaccines in a national programme. The Health Council of the Netherlands developed such a framework of criteria in 2007, and has been using this as basis for advisory reports about several vaccinations. However, general criteria alone offer insufficient ground and direction for thinking about what the state ought to do. In this paper, we present and defend two basic ethical principles that explain why certain vaccinations are the state's moral-political responsibility, and that may further guide decision-making about the content and character of immunisation programmes. First and foremost, the state is responsible for protecting the basic conditions for public health and societal life. Secondly, states are responsible for promoting and securing equal access to basic health care, which may also include certain vaccinations. We argue how these principles can find reasonable support from a broad variety of ethical and political views, and discuss several implications for vaccination policies.

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.

National Vaccine Policy: ethical equity issues.

The ministry of health and family welfare published the national vaccination policy in April 2011. The policy document drew severe criticism from several public health experts. A review of the print and web-based literature on the national vaccine policy was done and the issues of ethics and equity involved in introducing new vaccines under the Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP) were studied. The average coverage of the UIP vaccines at the national level is below 50%. Despite this, the policy document did not state any concrete strategy for increasing the coverage. The main stumbling block for evidence-based vaccine policy in India is the lack of reliable epidemiological data, which makes it difficult for the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation to offer sound technical advice to the government. No attempts have been made to prioritise diseases or the selection of vaccines. The policy suggests the introduction of the following vaccines in the UIP: Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal vaccine, rotavirus vaccines and human papillomavirus (HPV). This selection is on the grounds of the vaccines' availability, not on the basis of epidemiological evidence or proven cost-effectiveness. This is a critical review of the current vaccination policy and the move to include the rotavirus and HPV vaccines in the UIP.

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.

Human immune responses to vaccines in the first year of life: biological, socio-economic and ethical issues - a viewpoint.

Human newborns are vulnerable to infectious diseases that account for majority of the morbidity and mortality, particularly in first year of life. Vaccines have become the most effective public health intervention strategy to curtail the prevalence of these infectious diseases. Although vaccines against a number of diseases exist, there are no vaccines against many other diseases that commonly affect children. The adequate assessment of immune responses to vaccines is an important step in the development of vaccines. However, a number of biological and "non-medical" socio-economic and ethical factors could influence either the administration and/or evaluation of vaccines in infants. Recognition and understanding of these determinants are crucial in planning interventions and for logical interpretations of results.

Good epidemiology, good ethics: empirical and ethical dimensions of global public health.

This paper examines the following ethically and epidemiologically relevant challenges, as yet neglected in public health ethics: how to distribute resources and health risks and benefits, how to define evidentiary criteria that justify public health interventions, and how to define terms in which programme goals, successes, and failures will be assessed and monitored. We illuminate critical intersections of empirical and ethical dimensions of public health work, drawing upon three global public health interventions-inclusion of the Hepatitis B vaccine in the Universal Immunisation Programme, Universal Salt Iodisation, and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative-and suggest strategies for addressing and responding to them.

An ethical framework for public health immunisation programs.

This paper presents seven ethical principles associated with the implementation of immunisation programs. For a public health immunisation program to be ethically justifiable, its principles and operation should be based on sound ethical values: the program should benefit the individual and the community; targeted diseases should be sufficiently severe and frequent to justify the risks and expense of the program, and vulnerable groups within the population should be targeted. The principles also deal with the obligation to monitor for adverse events and for disease incidence to ensure safety and effectiveness. When immunisations are voluntary, vaccine recipients or their parents or carers should be given sufficient information to make autonomous, informed decisions and incentives to participate in public health immunisation programs should not be coercive. Public health immunisation programs depend on mutual trust, which may be threatened by circumstances such as excessive media publicity about adverse events associated with vaccines.