Question

Ethics argument about Governments should have the authority to stop citizens from participating in community activities when they refuse immunizations.

Answer 1

Among various public health activities initiated by governments of various nations,one among the main beneficial and cost effective initiative is Immunization against infectious disease .Vaccines proved to be effective in reducing the mortality and morbidity rates, improving health and well-being of citizens and enhanced human survival. Advantages due to vaccination is like two sides of a coin,one is it provides direct benefit to it's receiver and on the other hand it provides indirect benefit to the members of the community by creating herd immunity.

As like any other medical intervention, immunization also have risk of unfavourable outcomes. Few of such effects are temporary and superficial, for example mild fever or pain at the site of injection. But in rare cases serious complications do occur. For example, there is a chance of complication like vaccine associated paralytic polio due to oral polio vaccine in about 1 in 750,000 first doses as per data published by WHO in 2015.

An individual's decision about whether to receive a vaccine or not are influenced by personal perceptions about potential risks and psychological biases, such as a preference for errors of omission over errors of commission, and for natural over man-made risks. Due to increasing risks of life threatening pandemics and epidemics, nations world wide enacted policies and laws to achieve high rates of vaccine coverage among their populations inorder to protect their citizens. These policies were both persuasive as well as coercive. For example, various governments sponsored educational and promotional efforts through mass media or in school or clinical settings inorder to create awarness among public, allocated funds for the public inorder to pay for vaccines, made vaccination coverage under insurance policies, offered incentives to health care providers those who give larger number of vaccinations and also set vaccination status mandatory for school or day-care admission as well as attendance.

To discuss about negative effects of such corcive law, lets consider the example of England. In the year 1983, in England, vaccination of all infants were made mandatory and the parents those who refused to abide by the law faced fines or imprisonment. The rationale for bringing up such a law was to guard against the danger of resurgent smallpox. But many British citizens saw this rule as a violation of their rights that lead to a large and vocal anti-vaccination movement. Atlast the  anti-vaccinationists won the fight in 1898, when the government added a “conscience clause” that excused parents who believed that vaccination would harm their children’s health, a provision that was expanded in a 1907 act.

People who refuse vaccination pose harm to self as well as others.And the basic reason of resistance to getting vaccinated is lack of knowledge and fear. Imposing strict rules or laws may again lead to riots and social imbalance. The governments cannot allow or deny such activities blindly. Restricting from participating from social activities to protect others may be legal,but not ethical as man is a social animal.The most effective way to handle this situation is effective health education. One to one education with detailed explanation of risks and benefits with adequate evidence based data to support the viewpoints can convince majority of those who are hesitating to be vaccinated.