Bester Johan Christiaan
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) School of Medicine, 2040 W Charleston Blvd, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89102 and Center for Applied Ethics, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Sep;14(3):375-384. doi: 10.1007/s11673-017-9799-4. Epub 2017 Aug 16.
This article examines an argument which may negatively influence measles vaccination uptake. According to the argument, an individual child in a highly vaccinated society may be better off by being non-vaccinated; the child does not risk vaccine adverse effects and is protected against measles through herd immunity. Firstly, the conclusion of the argument is challenged by showing that herd immunity's protection is unreliable and inferior to vaccination. Secondly, the logic of the argument is challenged by showing that the argument is inherently self-defeating and therefore logically inconsistent. In practice the argument cannot be used to protect children against measles. Measles vaccination is undoubtedly best for children, even in highly vaccinated societies. Only if a medical contraindication to vaccination exists should vaccination be waived in favour of reliance on herd immunity. This places obligations on those who stand in care relationships with the child: parents, healthcare providers, and the state.
本文探讨了一个可能对麻疹疫苗接种率产生负面影响的观点。根据该观点，在疫苗接种率很高的社会中，个别儿童不接种疫苗可能会更好；该儿童不会面临疫苗不良反应的风险，并且通过群体免疫可预防麻疹。首先，通过表明群体免疫的保护作用不可靠且不如接种疫苗，对该观点的结论提出了质疑。其次，通过表明该观点本质上是自我挫败的，因此在逻辑上是不一致的，对该观点的逻辑提出了质疑。在实践中，该观点不能用于保护儿童预防麻疹。麻疹疫苗接种无疑对儿童是最好的，即使在疫苗接种率很高的社会也是如此。只有在存在接种疫苗的医学禁忌证时，才应放弃接种疫苗而依靠群体免疫。这给与儿童有照护关系的人（父母、医疗保健提供者和国家）带来了义务。
