Informed Consent in Obligatory Vaccinations?

Zagaja, Anna; Patryn, Rafał; Pawlikowski, Jakub; Sak, Jarosław

doi:10.12659/msm.910393

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This fact may be understood as a denial of patient autonomy. For instance, the fact that some vaccines are mandatory should not justify coercive vaccination [12,13]. In Benin, many laws put a particular emphasis on the notions of patient information and informed consent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Right to Information: An Assessment of Patients’ Perceptions and Satisfaction in a University Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of Cotonou

Bigot¹,

Kouanou²,

Vigan³

et al. 2021

JGO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The right to information is a fundamental right for women, who are vulnerable during the perimaternity period. This study aimed to assess and appraise women's perceptions of their right to information and the practices of medical teams of maternity wards regarding this matter. This cross-sectional study was carried out for 3 months in the first University Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of Cotonou. The female patients included in the study attended this maternity hospital for antenatal care or childbirth. The data collected were analysed and processed with SPSS V.25 software. Three hundred female patients were recruited within the framework of the study. Their mean age was 28±5 years. Most of the respondents were educated (78.4%) and considered that access to information was a right vested to them (68.3%). There was a statistically significant association between that perception and patients' educational levels or status. A large proportion of patients (88%) were satisfied with how information was delivered to them. Information related to diagnoses, paraclinical examinations and drug treatments was spontaneously transmitted in 37.7%, 55.6% and 27.7% of cases, respectively. Only 23.7% of the women who gave birth were provided information about the vaccines administered to their child at birth. Our findings provide evidence that maternity hospital users are aware of their right to their information. However, the medical team does not incorporate all the components of this right.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Right to Information: An Assessment of Patients’ Perceptions and Satisfaction in a University Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of Cotonou

Bigot¹,

Kouanou²,

Vigan³

et al. 2021

JGO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While those arguing that mandates are not justi able sometimes rely on arguments about risk of harm-i.e. that in a low-incidence (and therefore low-risk) setting mandates cannot be justi ed (45, 87,104)-most make their arguments from autonomy, informed consent, and personal liberty and do not weigh these against the potential for harm (12,16,61,82,89,107,114). One author argues that even if mandates improve vaccination rates, they damage trust with parents and make refusers more steadfast in their decision (121), so are not sustainable.…”

Section: 'Response' Arguments: Claims Regarding the Ability Of Differ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccine Refusal and What to Do About It: a Systematic Review of the Ethical Literature

Wiley

Christou-Ergos

Degeling

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Parental refusal of routine childhood vaccination remains an ethically contested area. This systematic review sought to explore and characterise the normative arguments made about parental refusal of routine vaccination, with the aim of providing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a synthesis of current normative literature. Methods: Nine databases covering health and ethics research were searched, and 121 publications identified for the period Jan 1998 to Mar 2022. For articles, source journals were categorised according to Australian Standard Field of Research codes, and normative content was analysed using a framework analytical approach. Results: Most of the articles were published in biomedical journals (34%), bioethics journals (21%), and journals that carry both classifications (20%). Two central questions dominated the literature: 1) Whether vaccine refusal is justifiable (which we labelled ‘refusal arguments’); and 2) Whether strategies for dealing with those who reject vaccines are justifiable (‘response arguments’). Refusal arguments relied on principlism, religious frameworks, the rights and obligations of parents, the rights of children, the medico-legal best interests of the child standard, and the potential to cause harm to others. Response arguments were broadly divided into arguments about policy, arguments about how individual physicians should practice regarding vaccine rejectors, and both legal precedents and ethical arguments for vaccinating children against a parent’s will. Policy arguments considered the normative significance of coercion, non-medical or conscientious objections, and possible reciprocal social efforts to offset vaccine refusal. Individual physician practice arguments covered nudging and coercive practices, patient dismissal, and the ethical and professional obligations of physicians. Most of the legal precedents discussed were from the American setting, with some from the United Kingdom. Conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive picture of the scope and substance of normative arguments about vaccine refusal and responses to vaccine refusal. It can serve as a platform for future research to extend the current normative literature, better understand the role of cultural context in normative judgements about vaccination, and more comprehensively translate the nuance of ethical arguments into practice and policy.

show abstract

“…Based upon published data, doses 2 and 3 did not augment efficacy above that of the first dose [6] With respect to continued use of Dengvaxia in licensing countries we believe the following discussions or implementations be undertaken: 1) observers should be alert to the occurrence of dengue SAEs beyond a period of four years, 2) develop, evaluate and validate a serological test that sensitively, specifically and affordably detects immunity to wild-type dengue virus infection, 3) on emergence of such a test consider the public health importance of expanding immunization to children under the age of 9 years, 4) discuss whether Dengvaxia can be administered in high endemicity populations without individual serotesting, 5) considering the lessons learned from Dengvaxia, revise the WHO Guidelines for Design and Evaluation of Dengue Vaccine Efficacy Trials and 6) in the event a dengue serological test does emerge determine if the risks of Dengvaxia SAEs mandate signed consent prior to immunization? [41] This report was written before the pandemic of COVID 19. Some of the same management issues raised here confront the public health community in attempting to moderate the burden of disease.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%