Wynia Matthew K
American Medical Association, USA.
Am J Bioeth. 2007 Dec;7(12):2-6. doi: 10.1080/15265160701795809.
Recent arguments over whether certain public health interventions should be mandatory raise questions about what counts as a "mandate." A mandate is not the same as a mere recommendation or the standard of practice. At minimum, a mandate should require an active opt-out and there should be some penalty for refusing to abide by it. Over-loose use of the term "mandate" and the easing of opt-out provisions could eventually pose a risk to the gains that truly mandatory public health interventions, such as childhood vaccines, have provided over the last 50 years. Already, confusion about what counts as a mandate, and about what criteria should be used to determine when a public health intervention should be implemented as a mandate, has led to some inappropriate public policy decisions. For instance, by any reasonable criteria, the yearly influenza vaccine should be mandatory for health care workers. To enforce this mandate, those who refuse vaccination should be required to sign a waiver, and patients - especially those at high risk from flu - should be informed when they receive care from unvaccinated practitioners.
最近关于某些公共卫生干预措施是否应强制实施的争论引发了关于什么才算“强制命令”的问题。强制命令不同于单纯的建议或实践标准。至少,一项强制命令应要求主动选择退出,并且对于拒绝遵守应有所处罚。对“强制命令”一词的过度宽松使用以及退出条款的放宽最终可能会给真正具有强制性的公共卫生干预措施(如儿童疫苗)在过去50年所带来的成果带来风险。关于什么才算强制命令以及应使用哪些标准来确定何时应将公共卫生干预措施作为强制命令实施的困惑,已经导致了一些不恰当的公共政策决策。例如,按照任何合理标准,医护人员每年都应强制接种流感疫苗。为了执行这项强制命令,应要求拒绝接种的人签署弃权声明,并且当患者——尤其是那些流感高危患者——接受未接种疫苗的从业者治疗时,应告知他们这一情况。