This week’s Nature has a worthwhile read, “Mandate Vaccination with Care.” The recent rise in the number of cases of measles is well-documented in the general press, and there is a strong argument that it is a social good that sufficient numbers of children be vaccinated for a range of infectious diseases. Your correspondent considers it unfortunate, to put it mildly, that there is a persistent belief that vaccines for the standard childhood diseases are harmful. Although some cases of vaccine harm occur, they are rare—rarer than many in the general public believe—and the cost of under-vaccination is great. I, for one, never want to see an infant with pertussis (whooping cough) again, and, although I recall having had measles and chicken pox when I was a kid, it’s best to prevent them. Some can even be eradicated (see: smallpox—which we should fervently hope is never purposely re-introduced, now that we don’t routinely vaccinate for it).
In brief, the authors in this case argue for promoting vaccination in the public with such steps as ensuring supply and access, providing information and allowing public forums, monitoring safety carefully, and tracking vaccination rates. They argue, reasonably, that mandatory vaccination that carries the wrong kind of penalties—such as, fines or even jail sentences imposed in some countries—for non-compliance actually can harm poorer, medically underserved people, and as such be counterproductive and, frankly, unfair. They comment that harsh mandates can unnecessarily prompt a backlash, with increased resistance.
They say, further, that if mandates are deemed “politically appropriate,” then the procedures should be just, with constraints on choice as limited as possible; any penalties must be proportionate; those who do suffer complications should be adequately compensated. They speak favorably of creating administrative hurdles to getting exemptions from mandates. They also argue against governments mandating only some vaccines while excluding others. They claim that making some vaccines only “recommended” can limit the uptake of all.
This last point may be the most questionable of all in this article. It is easier to justify mandating vaccination for highly contagious diseases that can have devastating effect (e.g. measles, rubella, diptheria, and others), than, for example, vaccination for human papilloma virus (HPV), infection with which predisposes to certain kinds of cancer but transmission of which is through sexual activity. In this last case, the argument for a mandate is substantially weaker; vaccination at a fairly young age might be wise, but one might still reasonably accept, for oneself or one’s child, the less certain and more remote risks of the consequences of infection, and therefore reasonably object to mandated vaccination.
Again, a worthwhile read. >