[How to Defend Mandatory Immunization Against Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccine Refusal? An Ethical Assessment]

Area of Science:

• Public Health Ethics
• Epidemiology
• Medical Ethics

Background:

• Personal autonomy is a core medical ethic, but can be overridden for community benefit during infectious disease epidemics.
• The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted widespread vaccine hesitancy and rejection, intensifying debates on mandatory immunization.
• Controlling epidemics scientifically relies on immunizing susceptible individuals, raising questions about compulsory vaccination policies.

Approach:

• This review evaluates ethical arguments for and against mandatory immunization, considering individual freedom versus community benefit.
• It analyzes conditions under which compulsory vaccination can be ethically justified.
• The study examines the tension between knowledge of public health benefits and vaccine hesitancy.

Key Points:

• Ethical justification exists for mandatory immunization when individual freedom conflicts with community well-being during epidemics.
• Conflicts between personal autonomy and community benefit are often illusory in the face of scientific necessity.
• Overcoming vaccine hesitancy requires addressing macro-determinants and rebuilding trust in medical institutions.

Conclusions:

• Mandatory immunization can be ethically supported under specific conditions to protect public health.
• Addressing vaccine hesitancy necessitates a transformation through social dialogue and evidence-based practice.
• Re-establishing trust in medical institutions is crucial for the successful implementation of public health strategies.