Nursing Ethics

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wood-Harper, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wood-Harper, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Nursing Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 1, 43-58 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0969733005ne757oa

Informing Education Policy on MMR: balancing individual freedoms and collective responsibilities for the promotion of public health

Janice Wood-Harper

School of Community Health Sciences and Social Care, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, M6 6PU, UK, j.wood-harper{at}salford.ac.uk

The recent decrease in public confidence in the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine has important implications for individuals and public health. This article presents moral arguments relating to conflicts between individual autonomy and collective responsibilities in vaccination decisions with a view to informing and advising health professionals and improving the effectiveness of education policies in avoiding resurgence of endemic measles. Lower population immunity, due to falling uptake, is hastening the need for greater public awareness of the consequences for the population. Vaccination refusals go hand in hand with responsibilities owed to future generations and society in not knowingly contributing to preventable harms. Issues such as parents’ rights are considered and balanced against: collective responsibilities for public health; permissibility of ‘free-riding’; conflicting duties of health professionals; and possible enforcement of vaccination. It is suggested that the arguments may form a persuasive tool for the practice of health professionals involved in informing and supporting parents’ vaccination decisions.

Key Words: collective reponsibility • education policy • enforcement of vaccination • health promotion • MMR • parents’ rights


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
A. Lyren and E. Leonard
Vaccine Refusal: Issues for the Primary Care Physician
Clinical Pediatrics, June 1, 2006; 45(5): 399 - 404.
[PDF]

Home page
 Nurs EthicsHome page
J. McGill and J. Wood-Harper
Letter to the Editor
Nursing Ethics, September 1, 2005; 12(5): 537 - 539.
[PDF]