Explore the vast range of titles available.

Context: In response to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease and increasing rates of vaccine refusal, some political communities have recently implemented coercive childhood immunization programs, or they have made existing childhood immunization programs more coercive. Many other political communities possess coercive vaccination policies, and others are considering developing them. Scholars and policymakers generally refer to coercive immunization policies as \"vaccine mandates.\" However, mandatory vaccination is not a unitary concept. Rather, coercive childhood immunization policies are complex, context-specific instruments. Their legally and morally significant features often differ, and they are imposed by political communities in varying circumstances and upon diverse populations. Methods: In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy for classifying real-world and theoretical mandatory childhood vaccination policies, according to their scope (which vaccines to require), sanctions and severity (which kind of penalty to impose on vaccine refusers, and how much of that penalty to impose), and selectivity (how to enforce or exempt people from vaccine mandates). Findings: A full understanding of the operation of a vaccine mandate policy (real or potential) requires attention to the separate components of that policy. However, we can synthesize information about a policy's scope, sanctions, severity, and selectivity to identify a further attribute—salience—which identifies the magnitude of the burdens the state imposes on those who are not vaccinated. Conclusion: Our taxonomy provides a framework for forensic examination of current and potential mandatory vaccination policies, by focusing attention on those features of vaccine mandates that are most relevant for comparative judgments.

•Several governments have recently introduced or reformed mandatory immunization.•New policies make it more difficult for parents to refuse vaccines.•Policies differ according to their impetus, design, and enforcement.•We compare recent exemptions policy initiatives in US, France, Italy and Australia.•We identify considerations for policymakers deciding how to design mandates. In response to recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases and concerns around vaccine refusal, several high-income countries have adopted or reformed vaccine mandate policies. While all make it more difficult for parents to refuse vaccines, the nature and scope of ‘mandatory vaccination’ is heterogeneous, and there has been no attempt to develop a detailed, comparative systematic account of the possible forms mandates can take. We compare the construction, introduction/amendment, and operation of six new high profile vaccine mandates in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, California, and Washington. We rank these policies in order of their relative restrictiveness and analyze other differences between them. New mandate instruments differ in their effects on behavior, and with regard to their structure, exemptions, target populations, consequences and enforcement. We identify diverse means by which vaccine mandates can restrict behaviors, various degrees of severity, and different gradations of intensity in enforcement. We suggest that politico-cultural context and vaccine policy history are centrally important factors for vaccine mandate policymakers to consider. It matters whether citizens trust their governments to limit individual freedom in the name of public health, and whether citizens have previously been subjected to vaccine mandates. Furthermore, political communities must consider the diverse mechanisms by which they may construct vaccine mandate policies; whether through emergency decrees or ordinary statutes, and how (or whether) to involve various stakeholder groups in developing and implementing new vaccine mandate policies.

Parents in the US and other societies are increasingly refusing to vaccinate their children, even though popular anti-vaccine myths – e.g. ‘vaccines cause autism’ – have been debunked. This book explains the epistemic and moral failures that lead some parents to refuse to vaccinate their children. First, some parents have good reasons not to defer to the expertise of physicians, and to rely instead upon their own judgments about how to care for their children. Unfortunately, epistemic self-reliance systematically distorts beliefs in areas of inquiry in which expertise is required (like vaccine immunology). Second, vaccine refusers and mainstream medical authorities are often committed to different values surrounding health and safety. For example, while vaccine advocates stress that vaccines have low rates of serious complications, vaccine refusers often resist vaccination because it is ‘unnatural’ and because they view vaccine-preventable diseases as a ‘natural’ part of childhood. Finally, parents who refuse vaccines rightly resist the utilitarian moral arguments – ‘for the greater good’ – that vaccine advocates sometimes make. Unfortunately, vaccine refusers also sometimes embrace a pernicious hyper-individualism that sanctions free-riding on herd immunity and that cultivates indifference to the interpersonal and social harms that unvaccinated persons may cause.

In US states, childhood immunization mandates are enforced for school registration by front-line school staff, usually secretaries. Despite substantial changes to mandate policies in several states and many countries, little attention has been paid to the people who enforce them. This qualitative pilot study aimed to uncover beliefs, attitudes, and practices regarding immunization governance of Michigan school staff. Front-line administrative workers from Michigan schools and district offices were solicited by email. Sixteen were interviewed remotely. Front-line school staff believed in vaccines, but did not advocate for vaccination while registering children. Instead, they sought low-friction bureaucratic transactions, privileging the collection of data over the promotion of public health goals. This revealed a mismatch between the goals of the front-line staff who enforce vaccine mandates in schools and the goals of the policymakers who created school vaccine mandates. This study found low mobilization of front-line enforcers of mandates in public-facing school administration roles, a problem likely to afflict the majority of American states with the ‘mandates + exemptions’ model of immunization governance. Schools would have stronger incentives to promote vaccination if state funding were better tied to immunization compliance. Front-line staff could better enforce vaccine mandates if they were provided with resources and training about vaccine promotion.

[...]harsher vaccine mandates can increase the practical and moral complexity of physicians’ decisions about whether to grant medical exemptions. [...]sometimes parents want their child vaccinated but are unable to achieve this successfully. [...]we suggest physician compensation for vaccine counseling with families, and the promotion and wide availability of evidence-based clinician communication strategies for speaking with hesitant parents. [...]we recommend consideration of an evidence-based and ethical

Recently, several states in the US have made it more difficult to receive nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates in the hope of better orienting parents towards vaccination. However, little is known about how public-facing school staff implement and enforce mandate policies, including why or how often they steer parents towards nonmedical exemptions. This study focused on Michigan, which has recently added an additional burden for families seeking nonmedical exemptions. We used an anonymous online survey to assess Michigan public-school employees (n = 157) about their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding Michigan’s school enrollment vaccine mandate policy. Our main conclusions are that frontline school staff are generally knowledgeable about vaccines and immunization policy, but are at best ambivalent about their role in immunization governance, believing that other agents should be responsible for ensuring that children are vaccinated. Furthermore, some respondents indicated low vaccine confidence, which was associated with increased ambivalence about, or opposition to, their role in immunization governance. As more jurisdictions within and beyond the US consider introducing or tightening childhood vaccine mandates, it is increasingly important to understand how these policies can be improved by attending to the attitudes and roles of relevant frontline actors.

•Health Department reconsiders patient dismissal/nonacceptance for vaccine refusal.•Half of surveyed clinicians dismiss patients who refuse or delay pediatric vaccines.•Clinician attitudes on dismissal shift after educational public health intervention.•Findings suggest opportunity for interdisciplinary responses to vaccine refusal. In the United States, nearly half of pediatricians dismiss or refuse to accept families that withhold consent from the administration of childhood vaccines. Since 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics has called patient dismissal in these cases “an acceptable option.” Clinician dismissal and non-acceptance pose a problem to public health because they cluster under-vaccinated children in the practices that remain willing to treat such children, and they decrease access to routine care for children who cannot find practices willing to accept or retain them. This paper reports the emergence of a new consciousness about dismissal and non-acceptance policies in the leadership of a local health department (LHD) of a populous metropolitan county. To understand the prevalence and diversity of patient dismissal within Oakland County, Michigan and to measure shifts in clinicians’ attitudes about dismissal following an educational intervention. A preliminary community survey was distributed to immunizing providers during April 2023 with 61 responses measuring the frequency and reasoning for dismissal policies. The results of the survey were used to inform a brief, evidence-backed educational intervention which was delivered in June 2023 to 82 participants from local pediatric medical offices. The initial survey was completed by 61 immunizing providers, representing an estimated 37% of vaccinating practices in the county. Half said their practice “always” or “sometimes” dismisses patients due to vaccine refusal. After the educational intervention, the proportion of participants who agreed/strongly agreed with the statement “I believe patient dismissal for vaccine refusal is a good choice for public health” decreased from 36% to 18%. The changes that we observed between the pre- and post-intervention surveys demonstrate the opportunity that exists for LHD leaders to enter the conversation around patient dismissal and nonacceptance and shed new light on this issue.

Vaccine refusal is not a free rider problem. The claim that vaccine refusers are free riders is inconsistent with the beliefs and motivations of most vaccine refusers. This claim also inaccurately depicts the relationship between an individual’s immunization choice, their ability to enjoy the benefits of community protection, and the costs and benefits that individuals experience from immunization and community protection. Modeling vaccine refusers as free riders also likely distorts the ethical analysis of vaccine refusal and may lead to unsuccessful policy interventions.

Techniques from behavioral economics—nudges—may help physicians increase pediatric vaccine compliance, but critics have objected that nudges can undermine autonomy. Since autonomy is a centrally important value in healthcare decision-making contexts, it counts against pediatric vaccination nudges if they undermine parental autonomy. Advocates for healthcare nudges have resisted the charge that nudges undermine autonomy, and the recent bioethics literature illustrates the current intractability of this debate. This article rejects a principle to which parties on both sides of this debate sometimes seem committed: that nudges are morally permissible only if they are consistent with autonomy. Instead, I argue that, at least in the case of pediatric vaccination, some autonomy-undermining nudges may be morally justified. This is because parental autonomy in pediatric decision-making is not as morally valuable as the autonomy of adult patients, and because the interests of both the vaccinated child and other members of the community can sometimes be weighty enough to justify autonomy-infringing pediatric vaccination nudges. This article concludes with a set of worries about the effect of pediatric vaccination nudges on parent-physician relationships, and it calls on the American Academy of Pediatrics to draw on scientific and bioethics research to develop guidelines for the use of nudges in pediatric practice and, in particular, for the use of pediatric vaccination nudges.

•Michigan’s public health staff implemented mandatory vaccine waiver education beginning in 2015.•Waiver educators initially thought they could convince parents to vaccinate.•Waiver educators later adopted more diffuse and forward-looking goals, like cultivating trust.•Public health staff found waiver education cognitively and emotionally challenging. In 2015, Michigan implemented an education requirement for parents who requested nonmedical exemptions from school or daycare immunization mandates. Michigan required parents to receive education from public health staff, unlike other states, whose vaccine education requirements could be completed online or at physicians’ offices. Results of focus group interviews with 39 of Michigan’s vaccine waiver educators, conducted during 2016 and 2017, were analyzed to identify themes describing educators’ experiences of waiver education. The core theme that emerged from the data was that educators changed their perception of the purpose of waiver education, from convincing vaccine-refusing parents to vaccinate their children to promoting more diffuse and forward-looking goals. Michigan, and other communities that require vaccine waiver education, ought to investigate whether and how waiver education contributes to public health goals other than short-term vaccination compliance. Research shows that education requirements can decrease nonmedical exemption rates by discouraging some parents from applying for exemptions, but further studies are needed to identify ways in which waiver education can promote other public health goals, while minimizing costs and burdens on staff.