Counterpoint: should childhood vaccination against measles be a mandatory requirement for attending school? No

Evolving measles status and immunization policy development in six European countries

Developing and implementing new immunization policies in response to shifting epidemiology is a critical public health component. We adopted a mixed-methods approach (via narrative literature review [101 articles] and 9 semi-structured interviews) to evaluate policy development in response to shifting measles epidemiology in six European countries (Italy, Belgium, Germany, Romania, UK, and Ukraine); where policies and strategies have evolved in response to country-specific disease and vaccination patterns. Periodic outbreaks have occurred in all countries against a background of declining measles-containing-vaccine (MCV) uptake and increasing public vaccine hesitancy (with substantial regional or social differences in measles burden and vaccine uptake). Health-care worker (HCW) vaccine skepticism is also seen. While many outbreaks arise or involve specific susceptible populations (e.g., minority/migrant communities), the broader pattern is spread to the wider (and generally older) population; often among incompletely/non-vaccinated individuals as a legacy of previous low uptake. Immunization policy and strategic responses are influenced by political and social factors, where public mistrust contributes to vaccine hesitancy. A strong centralized immunization framework (allied with effective regional implementation and coherent political commitment) can effectively increase uptake. Mandatory vaccination has increased childhood MCV uptake in Italy, and similar benefits could be anticipated for other countries considering vaccine mandates. Although possible elsewhere, socio-political considerations render mandating impractical in other countries, where targeted immunization activities to bolster routine uptake are more important. Addressing HCW skepticism, knowledge gaps, improving access and increasing public/community engagement and education to address vaccine hesitancy/mistrust (especially in communities with specific unmet needs) is critical.

The Model of "Informed Refusal" for Vaccination: How to Fight against Anti-Vaccinationist Misinformation without Disregarding the Principle of Self-Determination

Vaccines are arguably a public health success story as well as an incredibly cost-effective medical resource. Despite this, worldwide concerns about their safety are growing, with the risk of increased morbidity and mortality in vaccine-preventable diseases because of vaccine refusal. The global political trend in developed countries is to increasingly reduce mandates and the compulsory nature of vaccination programs. This is due to strong opposition from anti-vaccination movements and groups. While these have existed since the beginnings of vaccinology, they have recently gained a strong foothold through massive exploitation of the media and especially the internet. This has led to widespread misinformation and greater difficulty for governments and health institutions in dealing with parents’ concerns and misconceptions. Common strategies in order to maintain a high degree of public acceptance of vaccines include the enhancement of adverse effect reporting systems, the enrichment of scientific literature, and the dissemination of targeted information to parents and health care providers. Vaccine risk perception, in fact, largely exceeds the evidence and is linked to well-known general population cognitive bias, which must be recognized and corrected. Although there is no doubt about the convenience of universal vaccination, a lively international debate is underway with regard to the legitimacy of mandatory vaccination programs. Most scientists agree that the individual’s right to self-determination should be preserved. The only way to simultaneously protect the right to health is to introduce an informed refusal model, which aims to guarantee the highest coverage rates for vaccination.

[Vaccination ethics-a sketch of moral challenges and ethical criteria]

Vaccination recommendations of public health institutes and personal decisions to get vaccinated cannot be grounded on scientific evidence alone. If and under what conditions vaccinations should take place can only be decided for concrete contexts and accompanied by justification processes applying ethical norms and values.This paper offers a normative framework for vaccination ethics. It reflects the principles and argumentation of individual and social ethics and discusses public health ethical tools available in the literature. The specific challenges of autonomous and health literate behavior from a justice perspective are examined. Also discussed is the position of the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO).