Public values to guide childhood vaccination mandates: A report on four Australian community juries.

OBJECTIVE: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well-informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia. METHODS: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions. RESULTS: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high. CONCLUSION: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co-operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents.

Injuries and deaths following Covid-19 vaccination: The ethical and legal case for compensation.

In April 2024, in a class action suit for compensation to families of persons suffering injury or death after vaccination with AstraZeneca's (AZ) Covid-19 vaccine [1], the manufacturer admitted in a UK court that the Oxford-AZ Covid-19 vaccine could cause a rare and potentially fatal blood clotting disorder ("thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome" or TTS, which when triggered by a vaccine is called "vaccine induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis, or VITT) [2]. The AZ Covid-19 vaccine is a chimpanzee adenovirus vectored vaccine encoding the SARS-CoV2 spike protein (ChAdOx1-S) marketed under the names Covishield and Vaxzevria.

Some issues of compulsory vaccination of adults.

Legal regulation, whether we want it or not, plays a role in protecting and promoting individual and public health. This also applies to legislation involving vaccination, especially compulsory vaccination. It is appropriate that legislation should not create barriers to the provision of health care. Where there is legal ambiguity, problems can arise that make the provision of health care more difficult, as we have seen, for example, in the context of the COVID pandemic. Furthermore, in the case of compulsory vaccination, there is a conflict between fundamental rights and freedoms. On the one hand, the right to the protection of personal freedom and bodily integrity, and on the other, the right to life and health. Most compulsory vaccinations concern children. As far as adult vaccination is concerned, this mainly includes compulsory vaccination of medical and social staff caring for patients and operating at biological risk, as well as patient groups also at risk of serious infectious disease. For these reasons, it is essential that the legislation is such that it does not impose a burden where it is not necessary and, on the contrary, allows for optimal protection of persons at biological risk.

Vaccine Politics.

A vaccine law and policy expert reflects on the dangers of the influence of politics on public health decision making.

How Bodily Autonomy Can Fail Against Vaccination Mandates: The Few vs. the Many.

Humans have been a communal species since inception and continue to be so to this day. Because of this, if even a small scale of a measured population becomes severely ill, the entire remaining population and surrounding area is thrown into absolute chaos. In fact, we have seen these circumstances throughout history and in the recent COVID-19 pandemic yet, some of us have forgotten that the only way this chaos can be curbed, is by enacting a mandatory vaccination policy. Since COVID-19 however, vaccination mandates have become an uneasy topic of conversation in the United States for essentially one main reason, some U.S citizens do not like to be told what to do with their body and what to place inside it, further believing their bodily autonomy to be absolute. Data shows that this ideology recently became more widespread from an increase of mistrust of government and pharmaceutical companies, and from political beliefs and affiliations. Nevertheless, what the data also shows is that these same individuals were asserting their right to bodily autonomy against a vaccination mandate in an unduly aggressive manner, and on a very erroneous understanding of the governing jurisprudence, policies and modern scientific data surrounding said vaccination mandates and large scale disease outbreaks. This article therefore aims to provide a clear and extensive understanding of the proposition that, while bodily autonomy is favored in other aspects of life, this right can fail with respect to deadly disease outbreaks and mandatory vaccinations as there is presently no other practical or feasible alternative. Specifically, this article introduces and/or reminds the U.S. public of well-established governing case law, relevant historical and scientific information and the pertinent legislative authority surrounding vaccines, bodily autonomy, and vaccination mandates.

The implementation of a new measles vaccine mandate in Germany: A qualitative study in local health departments.

BACKGROUND: Measles is a highly contagious disease with the potential for severe complications. Despite the availability of effective vaccines, there have been recurrent measles outbreaks in Germany over the past decades. In response, a new measles vaccine mandate was introduced on March 1, 2020, aimed at closing vaccination gaps in high-risk populations. This study evaluates the mandate's implementation, identifies operational challenges, assesses the impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and investigates expert attitudes towards the new policy. METHODS: Semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with staff members of 16 different local health departments in Germany. The interviews, carried out in April and May 2021, were electronically recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the Framework method. RESULTS: The implementation of the measles vaccine mandate in local health departments varied substantially. Challenges in implementing the mandate primarily arose from uncertainties regarding procedural specifics, such as handling fraudulent medical certificates and imposing sanctions, leading to a call from many interviewees for uniform guidelines to ensure coherent implementation. At the time the measles vaccine mandate came into force, managing the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was a priority in most local health departments, often delaying the implementation of the mandate. Despite the difficulties encountered, most experts considered the mandate to be an effective step towards measles elimination. CONCLUSIONS: The measles vaccine mandate has imposed a new responsibility on staff in German local health departments, which is associated with implementation challenges such as procedural uncertainties and vaccine hesitancy, but also the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as a contextual impediment. Significant differences in the implementation approach underscore the need for harmonization to enhance implementation efficiency and public acceptance of the mandate. Despite the mandate's potential to increase vaccination rates, our findings advocate for a comprehensive approach, incorporating public education, accessible vaccination, and measures to address social disparities.

Use of a Financial Incentive Code for In-Home COVID-19 Vaccination of Homebound Older Adults.

This study evaluated the uptake of Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code M0201 after initial implementation to inform future policy related to in-home preventive care.

Minor Consent for Vaccination: Ethically Justified, Politically Fraught.

Policies allowing some minors to consent to receive recommended vaccines are ethically defensible. However, a policy change at the federal level expanding minor consent for vaccinations nationwide risks triggering a political backlash. Such a move may be perceived as infringing on the rights of parents to make decisions about their children's health care. In the current post-COVID environment of heightened anti-vaccination activism, changes to minor consent laws may be unadvisable, and policy makers should proceed with caution.

Vaccination against COVID-19: the view of Brazilian federal judges.

The aim was to analyze the perception of Brazilian federal judges on the implications of COVID-19 vaccination. A study was carried out with Brazilian federal judges, who received a survey designed with multiple-choice questions on COVID-19 vaccination, covering topics such as its mandatory aspect, the application of coercive measures, hesitation to vaccinate, priority groups, the duties of Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa, acronym in Portuguese), the role of the Judiciary branch, and immunity passports. A total of 254 out of 1,300 federal judges from all states responded to the survey. Most respondents have a Bachelor's degree or a specialization (59.1%) and have been judges for more than 10 years (63.8%). A great majority of the judges (87.7%) agree with vaccine mandates for adults and for children and adolescents (66.1%). Over 75% of judges believe that all levels of government can impose sanctions on those who refuse to get vaccinated. The judges trust vaccination 93% of the time, 56.1% reject anti-vaccination movements, and 75.2% believe that Anvisa duties should be respected. The Judiciary branch actions concerning the COVID-19 pandemic are approved by 62.6% of judges, and 88.2% support immunity passports. There is a direct connection among mandatory vaccination, trust in the vaccine, and the adoption of immunity passports. Most federal judges agree with vaccine mandates for children and adults, support the application of sanctions for vaccination refusal, disapprove of anti-vaccination movements, agree with Anvisa's duties, and support judicial intervention in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Compatibility of Mandatory Vaccination with the European Convention on Human Rights: Implications for a National Vaccination Policy.

This contribution examines the compatibility of mandatory vaccination with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) through an analysis of the relevant ECHR rights and related case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). By focusing on Article 8 (Right to Private Life), Article 2 (Right to Life) and Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion) ECHR, we formulate conditions under which mandatory vaccination legislation is justified. With that, this analysis aims to provide national legislators with guidance on responsible legislative policy. Additionally, this article discusses the legal framework underlying the Dutch vaccination policy, including developments therein since COVID-19. Furthermore, the role of the European Union in the context of vaccination is briefly discussed. The importance of an extensive societal and parliamentary debate before implementing a mandatory vaccination policy is stressed, as is the need for proportionality in enforcement.

Lowering the Age of Consent for Vaccination to Promote Pediatric Vaccination: It's Worth a Shot.

This paper challenges historically preconceived notions surrounding a minor's ability to make medical decisions, arguing that federal health law should be reformed to allow minors with capacity as young as age 12 to consent to their own Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC)-approved COVID-19 vaccinations. This proposal aligns with and expands upon current exceptions to limitations on adolescent decision-making. This analysis reviews the historic and current anti-vaccination sentiment, examines legal precedence and rationale, outlines supporting ethical arguments regarding adolescent decision-making, and offers rebuttals to anticipated ethical counterarguments.

Shingles Vaccination in Medicare Part D After Inflation Reduction Act Elimination of Cost Sharing.

This cross-sectional study uses data from retail pharmacies to examine shingles vaccine uptake among Medicare Part D beneficiaries following an IRA policy to eliminate cost sharing.

Lived Religion in Religious Vaccine Exemptions.

This essay explores a more inclusive and equitable interpretation of "religion" within the context of religious vaccine exemptions. The existing literature critiques the prevalent interpretation of the meaning of religion in religious exemption cases, but frequently overlooks the importance of incorporating the concept of "lived religion." This essay introduces the concept of lived religion from religious studies, elucidates why this lived religion approach is crucial for redefining "religion," and illustrates its application in the domain of religious vaccine exemptions. The author contends that broadening the meaning of religion by employing the concept of lived religion would promote a more inclusive and equitable implementation of religious vaccine exemptions.

Kindergarten Vaccination Status in California After Changes to Medical Exemption Policy.

This study evaluates changes in medical exemptions and geographic distribution of kindergarteners in California not up to date on vaccination after changes to state legislation.

Vaccination Mandates-An Old Public Health Tool Faces New Challenges.

This Viewpoint discusses how federal vaccine requirements have helped thwart vaccine-preventable diseases as well as how growing public resistance to vaccines and judicial and legislative limits to vaccination mandates may change that.