Vaccine hesitancy and trust. Ethical aspects of risk communication

被引:38
作者
Fahlquist, Jessica Nihlen [1 ]
机构
[1] Uppsala Univ, Ctr Res Eth & Bioeth, Box 256, S-75105 Uppsala, Sweden
关键词
Vaccination; ethics; risk communication; measles; H1N1; trust; responsibility; EMOTIONS;
D O I
10.1177/1403494817727162
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Aim: This paper analyses vaccination policy from an ethical perspective, against the background of the growing hesitancy towards e.g. the measles vaccine. Methods: The paper is normative and analyses ethical aspects of risk communication in the context of vaccination. It is argued that ethical analysis of risk communication should be done at the level of the message, the procedure and the effects. The paper takes examples from the Swedish context, linking the current lack of trust in experts to the 2009 vaccination policy and communication promoting the H1N1 vaccine Pandemrix. Results: During the Swedish H1N1 vaccination policy in 2009, the message was that the vaccine is safe. However, a group of adolescents developed narcolepsy as a side effect of the vaccine. Taking this into account, it becomes clear that the government should communicate risks and benefits responsibly and take responsibility for individuals affected negatively by populational health interventions. Conclusion: To communicate respectfully entails not treating vaccine sceptics as ill-informed or less educated, but instead taking the concerns of the vaccine hesitant, who potentially could change their minds, as a starting-point of a respectful discussion. There will inevitably be individuals who suffer from side effects of justifiable population-based health promotion activities. However, the public should be able to trust the message and count on the government to take responsibility for individuals affected by side effects. This is important for normative reasons, but is additionally likely to contribute to restored and maintained trust.
引用
收藏
页码:182 / 188
页数:7
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], SVENSKA DAGBLADET
  • [2] [Anonymous], ETHICS PREVENTION PU
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1994, DESCARTES ERROR
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2015, METRO
  • [5] Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations
    Blume, S
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2006, 62 (03) : 628 - 642
  • [6] Understanding Vaccine Hesitancy in Canada: Results of a Consultation Study by the Canadian Immunization Research Network
    Dube, Eve
    Gagnon, Dominique
    Ouakki, Manale
    Bettinger, Julie A.
    Guay, Maryse
    Halperin, Scott
    Wilson, Kumanan
    Graham, Janice
    Witteman, Holly O.
    MacDonald, Shannon
    Fisher, William
    Monnais, Laurence
    Tran, Dat
    Gagneur, Arnaud
    Guichon, Juliet
    Saini, Vineet
    Heffernan, Jane M.
    Meyer, Samantha
    Driedger, S. Michelle
    Greenberg, Joshua
    MacDougall, Heather
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (06):
  • [7] Vaccine hesitancy An overview
    Dube, Eve
    Laberge, Caroline
    Guay, Maryse
    Bramadat, Paul
    Roy, Real
    Bettinger, Julie
    [J]. HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS, 2013, 9 (08) : 1763 - 1773
  • [8] *ECDC, 2017, EP UPD ONG MEASL OUT
  • [9] Edholm L, 2017, DEBATT
  • [10] Nuclear energy, responsible risk communication and moral emotions: a three level framework
    Fahlquist, Jessica Nihlen
    Roeser, Sabine
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, 2015, 18 (03) : 333 - 346