Vaccination, mandatory vaccination, france, ethics, public health, consent, personal liberty, medical procedure, covid-19
Vaccination gives humans and living beings immunity against some viruses, allowing humans and animals to live longer, as they can now be protected. Vaccination is a very important procedure in several countries, as it can provide people with general immunity.
However, some vaccination campaigns don't give people a choice. In France, for instance, children need to be vaccinated against eleven different illnesses in order to go to school. But, going to school is a right, and people also have the right to consent or not to medical procedures.
Thus, some vaccination campaigns and the idea of compulsory vaccination don't align with the idea of individual autonomy and consent from individuals.
This is the issue I would like to tackle here. I want to talk about mandatory vaccination and the bioethics issues related to it. I took four different articles; none of them are properly anti-vaccine, but they each offer a different perspective on the topic. They do not necessarily contradict each
other, but each of them focuses on different issues about mandatory vaccination. They do not have the same point of view on the issue and do not offer the same solutions to each similar issue, which is why it is interesting.
[...] Savulescu focuses on the responsibility of people regarding others. Even if there are some concerns regarding mandatory vaccination, he insists that mandatory vaccination is justified on Millian grounds: harm to others. According to John Stuart Mill, the sole ground for the use of state coercion is when one individual risks harming others. During a pandemic or when the vaccine is about a very deadly virus, the state cannot risk the health of an entire population; therefore, mandatory vaccination is totally justified, and individuals themselves must be aware of the danger of not being vaccinated. [...]
[...] Some concerns are related to the effectiveness of the vaccine. Mandatory vaccination means imposing vaccination on individuals, and these individuals express concerns about the process of creating vaccines. J. Savulescu in "Good Reasons to Vaccinate: Mandatory or Payment for Risk?" in the Journal of Medical Ethics gives us a different point of view as it focuses on the COVID-19 pandemic, thus focusing on the process used to develop anti-COVID vaccines. The article highlights the fact that vaccines that are produced faster can be riskier, as we cannot see results in the long term on experimental subjects. [...]
[...] Decision-making involving the healthcare of young patients should flow from responsibility shared by physicians and parents. This element is a foundation for informed consent, which is one of the principles that can help resolve ethical concerns regarding mandatory vaccination. We can see that idea in the same article: patients should have more explanations in understandable language about the nature of the ailment and condition. The same applies to vaccines; it should be popularized and more understandable, as currently, medical information can be either not understandable or totally transformed by media and on social apps. [...]
[...] But children are much more sensitive to viruses, especially young ones, and not vaccinating them can put them in serious danger. Pediatric healthcare professionals tend to believe that they need to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs and not what someone else expresses. So there can be impasses regarding the best interests of minors and the expressed wishes of their parents. The solutions regarding these issues: different points of view: There are different solutions to the ethical issues. In response to the coercion of which states are accused regarding mandatory vaccination, M. [...]
[...] Proponents of mandatory vaccination, however, emphasize the paramount importance of public health in safeguarding communities against infectious diseases. They contend that the potential risks associated with vaccine refusal, particularly during pandemics, justify state intervention to ensure widespread immunization. Moreover, they advocate for enhanced transparency and communication strategies to address public concerns and promote informed decision-making. Yet, amidst divergent viewpoints, it becomes evident that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ethical challenges posed by mandatory vaccination. Instead, a comprehensive framework must balance individual freedoms with collective responsibilities, while prioritizing equitable access to healthcare resources. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
