Mandatory Vaccination: An Unqualified Defence

Abstract

The 2015 Disneyland outbreak of measles in the US unequivocally brought to light what had been brewing below the surface for a while: a slow but steady decline in vaccination rates resulting in a rising number of outbreaks. This can be traced back to an increasing public questioning of vaccines by an emerging anti-vaccination movement. This article argues that, in the face of diminishing vaccination rates, childhood vaccinations should not be seen as part of the domain of parental choice but, instead, as a non-negotiable legal obligation. The first part of the article formulates and defends two arguments in favour of unqualified mandatory childhood vaccination laws. First, government should not permit parents to put their children at avoidable risk of death and suffering; second, government should guard the common good of herd immunity to protect vulnerable persons. The second part rejects legal and pragmatic objections against such mandatory vaccination laws.

Vaccination Policies and the Principle of Least Restrictive Alternative: An Intervention Ladder

“…Compulsory vaccination would probably also be the most effective vaccination policy. In the next chapter, I will make the ethical case for compulsory vaccination, also by criticizing some of the authors who have put forward the idea that vaccination should be compulsory, but who have in the end mitigated their claim by appealing to the PLRA (Pierik 2016;Flanigan 2014).…”

Vaccination: Facts, Relevant Concepts, and Ethical Challenges

“…According to many advocates of coercive vaccination policies, the ultimate goal of such policies should be herd immunity. More precisely, consistently with a principle of "least restrictive alternative", these authors think that states should implement the least coercive policy that is necessary to achieve herd immunity, even if the least restrictive policy entails some level of coercion (e.g., Flanigan 2014;Navin 2015;Pierik 2016). In Chap.…”

Democracy and/or Consent: A Comment on Carol Gould's ‘How Democracy Can Inform Consent’

“…The interest of others in being protected from infectious disease does ground a right against me that, absent unusual circumstances, I accept vaccination for myself or for my children. 9 The fact that medical interventions have to do with one's bodily integrity means that, ceteris paribus, one should have final say over what is and is not done to one's body in medical settings. Only in peculiar circumstances do one's decisions in the medical context have the kind of impact upon third parties that would justify their having a right against me that I undergo a medical procedure that I do not want to undergo.…”