Childhood vaccine refusal and what to do about it: a systematic review of the ethical literature.

BACKGROUND: Parental refusal of routine childhood vaccination remains an ethically contested area. This systematic review sought to explore and characterise the normative arguments made about parental refusal of routine vaccination, with the aim of providing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a synthesis of current normative literature. METHODS: Nine databases covering health and ethics research were searched, and 121 publications identified for the period Jan 1998 to Mar 2022. For articles, source journals were categorised according to Australian Standard Field of Research codes, and normative content was analysed using a framework analytical approach. RESULTS: Most of the articles were published in biomedical journals (34%), bioethics journals (21%), and journals that carry both classifications (20%). Two central questions dominated the literature: (1) Whether vaccine refusal is justifiable (which we labelled 'refusal arguments'); and (2) Whether strategies for dealing with those who reject vaccines are justifiable ('response arguments'). Refusal arguments relied on principlism, religious frameworks, the rights and obligations of parents, the rights of children, the medico-legal best interests of the child standard, and the potential to cause harm to others. Response arguments were broadly divided into arguments about policy, arguments about how individual physicians should practice regarding vaccine rejectors, and both legal precedents and ethical arguments for vaccinating children against a parent's will. Policy arguments considered the normative significance of coercion, non-medical or conscientious objections, and possible reciprocal social efforts to offset vaccine refusal. Individual physician practice arguments covered nudging and coercive practices, patient dismissal, and the ethical and professional obligations of physicians. Most of the legal precedents discussed were from the American setting, with some from the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive picture of the scope and substance of normative arguments about vaccine refusal and responses to vaccine refusal. It can serve as a platform for future research to extend the current normative literature, better understand the role of cultural context in normative judgements about vaccination, and more comprehensively translate the nuance of ethical arguments into practice and policy.

Australia's 'No Jab No Play' policies: history, design and rationales.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2014, five Australian states have enacted 'No Jab, No Play' policies requiring children to be fully vaccinated to attend childcare and early education services. We review the five policies and their implications for implementers - including healthcare and childcare service providers - and analyse factors that shaped the design of state policies. METHODS: We employed documentary analysis and analysed key informant interviews in NVivo 12. RESULTS: Our findings reveal similarities and differences between state provisions regarding exemptions, grace periods, responsibilities of service providers and sanctions for non-compliance. We elaborate on five factors of influence that have shaped No Jab, No Play policies: i) impetus for change; ii) policy normalisation, growing concurrence and stringency; iii) increased co-optation of childcare providers into vaccination governance; iv) policy influence and lessons; and v) partisan politics and the development of party ideologies over time. CONCLUSION: A range of factors contribute to how and why Australia's NJNPlay policies have taken their current forms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: NJNPlay policies impact families and healthcare providers as part of the broader policy ecosystem concerned with maintaining high immunisation rates in Australia. Increased coercion of parents over time has been tempered by partisan positions on exemptions for disadvantage.

Mandatory vaccination and no fault vaccine injury compensation schemes: An identification of country-level policies.

BACKGROUND: To prevent the spread of infectious diseases, governments have implemented a number of policies, including a range of mandatory vaccination policies. In addition, some governments have implemented no fault vaccine injury compensation schemes as a legal mechanism of recourse for individuals experiencing adverse events following vaccination. We aimed to identify countries with mandatory vaccination policies that also have no fault compensation schemes. METHODS: To identify countries with mandatory childhood vaccination policies, we utilized existing publications, lists and databases, also conducting multiple country searches and policy detail verification. We then investigated compensation schemes for each country with childhood vaccination mandates, using an existing study and database/internet searches. RESULTS: Of the 62 countries we identified with mandatory childhood vaccination policies, we found evidence that only 7 (11%) had also implemented no fault compensation schemes. CONCLUSIONS: No-fault compensation schemes are one government approach to address unintended consequences of vaccination. Few countries have implemented these schemes, including those with mandatory vaccination policies. Mandatory vaccination invokes a strong need to protect those who fall victim to extremely rare cases of provable no-fault vaccine injury. Countries that mandate childhood vaccination without providing no fault compensation schemes could be seen as abrogating the social contract. This is particularly important when public policies limit parental choice regarding whether to vaccinate.