Williamson Laura, Glaab Hannah
Biobehavioral Health Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA.
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Oct 24;19(1):84. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0322-1.
Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to public health. The reasons are complex but linked inextricably to a lack of trust in vaccines, expertise and traditional sources of authority. Efforts to increase immunization uptake in children in many countries that have seen a fall in vaccination rates are two-fold: addressing hesitancy by improving healthcare professional-parent exchange and information provision in the clinic; and, secondly, public health strategies that can override parental concerns and values with coercive measures such as mandatory and presumptive vaccination.
It is argued that such conflicting, parallel approaches seriously risk undermining trust that is crucial for sustaining herd immunity. Although public health strategies can be ethically justified in limiting freedoms, a parent-centered approach seldom acknowledges how it is impacted by contemporaneous coercive measures. In addition, the clinical encounter is not well suited to helping parents consider the public dimensions of vaccination, despite these being important for trust formation and informed decision-making. Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy require more consistent engagement of parental and citizen views. Along with evidence-based information, debates need to be informed by ethical support that equips parents and professionals to respond to the private and public dimensions of vaccination in a more even-handed, transparent manner.
Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy need to avoid simple reliance on either parental values or coercive public policies. To do this effectively requires increasing citizen engagement on vaccination to help inform a parent-centered approach and legitimize public policy measures. In addition, cultivating a more ethically consistent strategy means moving beyond the current silos of health ethics - clinical and public health ethics.
疫苗犹豫对公共卫生构成日益严重的威胁。其原因复杂,但与对疫苗、专业知识及传统权威来源缺乏信任紧密相关。在许多疫苗接种率下降的国家,提高儿童免疫接种率的努力有两方面:一是通过改善医疗保健专业人员与家长在诊所的交流及信息提供来解决犹豫问题;二是采取公共卫生策略,通过强制和推定接种等强制措施来压倒家长的担忧和价值观。
有人认为,这种相互冲突的并行方法极有可能破坏对维持群体免疫至关重要的信任。尽管公共卫生策略在限制自由方面在伦理上有正当理由,但以家长为中心的方法很少承认它如何受到同期强制措施的影响。此外,临床接触不太适合帮助家长考虑疫苗接种的公共层面,尽管这些层面对于信任的形成和明智决策很重要。解决疫苗犹豫问题的努力需要更持续地考虑家长和公民的观点。除了基于证据的信息外,辩论还需要有伦理支持,使家长和专业人员能够以更公正、透明的方式应对疫苗接种的私人和公共层面。
解决疫苗犹豫问题的努力需要避免简单地依赖家长的价值观或强制性的公共政策。要有效做到这一点,需要增加公民对疫苗接种的参与,以帮助形成以家长为中心的方法并使公共政策措施合法化。此外,制定更符合伦理的一致策略意味着超越当前健康伦理的孤立领域——临床伦理和公共卫生伦理。