Cargando…
Vaccinations: Mandatory or Voluntary? Risk–Benefit Analysis
The discussion regarding mandatory vaccination of children centers mainly around the question of whether producing public good has precedence over the freedom of individuals. In the core of this discussion lies the assumption that mass immunization has been proven as a public good, based on the expe...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7163241/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32327947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325820920116 |
_version_ | 1783523178041049088 |
---|---|
author | Socol, Yehoshua Shaki, Yair Y. |
author_facet | Socol, Yehoshua Shaki, Yair Y. |
author_sort | Socol, Yehoshua |
collection | PubMed |
description | The discussion regarding mandatory vaccination of children centers mainly around the question of whether producing public good has precedence over the freedom of individuals. In the core of this discussion lies the assumption that mass immunization has been proven as a public good, based on the experts’ opinion that there is no proof of significant damage caused by vaccinations. We suggest, however, that this argument is insufficient. Namely, beside acute effects, vaccination (as any intervention) can shorten long-term life expectancy. If, for example, vaccination is intended to prevent an illness that causes 0.05% mortality or permanent disability population-wide (like in the case of measles), the population-wide vaccination can be considered as a public good only if the vaccination itself does not cause life shortening by 0.05%, that is, by about 15 days. Absence of such a small long-term effect has not been proven and cannot be proven in principle for several decades to come. The lack of proof of damage is not proof of lack of damage; in any dispute, the burden of proof lies with those who lay charges. Therefore, we conclude that it is inappropriate today to enforce mandatory immunization. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7163241 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71632412020-04-23 Vaccinations: Mandatory or Voluntary? Risk–Benefit Analysis Socol, Yehoshua Shaki, Yair Y. Dose Response Commentary The discussion regarding mandatory vaccination of children centers mainly around the question of whether producing public good has precedence over the freedom of individuals. In the core of this discussion lies the assumption that mass immunization has been proven as a public good, based on the experts’ opinion that there is no proof of significant damage caused by vaccinations. We suggest, however, that this argument is insufficient. Namely, beside acute effects, vaccination (as any intervention) can shorten long-term life expectancy. If, for example, vaccination is intended to prevent an illness that causes 0.05% mortality or permanent disability population-wide (like in the case of measles), the population-wide vaccination can be considered as a public good only if the vaccination itself does not cause life shortening by 0.05%, that is, by about 15 days. Absence of such a small long-term effect has not been proven and cannot be proven in principle for several decades to come. The lack of proof of damage is not proof of lack of damage; in any dispute, the burden of proof lies with those who lay charges. Therefore, we conclude that it is inappropriate today to enforce mandatory immunization. SAGE Publications 2020-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7163241/ /pubmed/32327947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325820920116 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Commentary Socol, Yehoshua Shaki, Yair Y. Vaccinations: Mandatory or Voluntary? Risk–Benefit Analysis |
title | Vaccinations: Mandatory or Voluntary? Risk–Benefit
Analysis |
title_full | Vaccinations: Mandatory or Voluntary? Risk–Benefit
Analysis |
title_fullStr | Vaccinations: Mandatory or Voluntary? Risk–Benefit
Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Vaccinations: Mandatory or Voluntary? Risk–Benefit
Analysis |
title_short | Vaccinations: Mandatory or Voluntary? Risk–Benefit
Analysis |
title_sort | vaccinations: mandatory or voluntary? risk–benefit
analysis |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7163241/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32327947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325820920116 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT socolyehoshua vaccinationsmandatoryorvoluntaryriskbenefitanalysis AT shakiyairy vaccinationsmandatoryorvoluntaryriskbenefitanalysis |