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.

Parents' attitudes towards the No Jab No Play legislation in Western Australia: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Mandates provide a relatively cost-effective strategy to increase vaccinate rates. Since 2014, five Australian states have implemented No Jab No Play (NJPlay) policies that require children to be fully immunised to attend early childhood education and childcare services. In Western Australia, where this study was conducted, NJNPlay legislation was enacted in 2019. While most Australian families support vaccine mandates, there are a range of complexities and unintended consequences for some families. This research explores the impact on families of the NJNPlay legislation in Western Australia (WA). METHODS: This mixed-methods study used an online parent/carer survey (n = 261) representing 427 children and in-depth interviews (n = 18) to investigate: (1) the influence of the NJNPlay legislation on decision to vaccinate; and (2) the financial and emotional impacts of NJNPlay legislation. Descriptive and bivariate tests were used to analyse the survey data and open-ended questions and interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to capture the experience and the reality of participants. RESULTS: Approximately 60% of parents intended to vaccinate their child. Parents who had decided not to vaccinate their child/ren were significantly more likely to experience financial [p < 0.001] and emotional impacts [p < 0.001], compared to those who chose to vaccinate because of the mandate. Qualitative data were divided with around half of participants supporting childhood immunisation and NJNPlay with others discussing concerns. The themes (a) belief in the importance of vaccination and ease of access, (b) individual and community protection, and (c) vaccine effectiveness, safety and alternatives help understand how parents' beliefs and access may influence vaccination uptake. Unintended impacts of NJNPlay included: (a) lack of choice, pressure and coercion to vaccinate; (b) policy and community level stigma and discrimination; (c) financial and career impacts; and (d) loss of education opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Parents appreciation of funded immunisation programs and mandates which enhance individual and community protection was evident. However for others unintended consequences of the mandate resulted in significant social, emotional, financial and educational impacts. Long-term evidence highlights the positive impact of immunisation programs. Opinions of impacted families should be considered to alleviate mental health stressors.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Physicians Say an Idaho House Bill That Would Criminalize Administering mRNA Vaccines Is an Attack on the Medical Profession-Even If It Doesn't Become Law.

This Medical News article discusses a bill introduced in Idaho that would ban administering mRNA vaccines.