Vaccine
Volume 32, Issue 52, Pages 7033-7184 (12 December 2014)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0264410X/32/52

Special Section: Vaccination Ethics
Vaccination ethics
Pages 7161-7162
A.M. Viens, Angus Dawson
[No abstract]

What is the responsibility of national government with respect to vaccination?
Original Research Article
Pages 7163-7166
Marcel F. Verweij, Hans Houweling
Highlights
:: Governments have a dual responsibility in relation to collective vaccination.
:: First, to protect conditions for public health and societal life.
:: Second, to secure equitable access to basic preventive care.
:: Judgments about seriousness of risk and disease are inevitable in applying these principles.

How high is a high risk? Prioritising high-risk individuals in an influenza pandemic
Original Research Article
Pages 7167-7170
Jasper Littmann
Highlights
:: Pandemic contingency plans often prioritise high-risk patients for immunisation.
:: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for this group are poorly defined.
:: Many pandemic plans fail to define how great a risk must be to merit prioritisation.
:: Personal responsibility for a risk factor is not normally taken into account.
:: The resulting categorisation of high-risk individuals is often arbitrary.

Ethical considerations in post-market-approval monitoring and regulation of vaccines
Original Research Article
Pages 7171-7174
Alison Thompson, Ana Komparic, Maxwell J. Smith
Highlights
:: We articulate ethical considerations for regulators involved in post-market vaccine monitoring and regulation.
:: The protection of the public from harm is both a strong obligation of governments and the main ethical consideration.
:: There are four subsequent considerations that need to be considered when aiming to protect the public from vaccine harms related to safety and effectiveness.
:: These are highest quality of evidence possible, anticipatory decision making, duty to warn and proportionate monitoring.
:: In addition to these considerations, we identify further ethical issues that need consideration, including: transparency, a publicly acceptable risk-benefit profile, minimization of stigma, special obligations to vulnerable populations and public trust.

Varicella-zoster virus vaccination under the exogenous boosting hypothesis: Two ethical perspectives
Original Research Article
Pages 7175-7178
Jeroen Luyten, Benson Ogunjimi, Philippe Beutels
Highlights
:: Childhood chickenpox vaccination may increase zoster incidence in older age groups.
:: This ‘exogenous boosting’ effect gives VZV policy an important equity dimension.
:: We discuss the justifiability of childhood vaccination from two ethical perspectives.
:: Classic utilitarianism offers a basis for a policy that discourages VZV-vaccination.
:: Contractualism lends support to children’s freedom to become vaccinated.

The ethics of disease eradication
Original Research Article
Pages 7179-7183
James Wilson
Highlights
:: The endgame of eradication policies will often involve some individuals being vaccinated against their medical best interests.
:: Eradication policies can nonetheless be ethically appropriate, as they should be thought of through the lens of public health ethics, rather than clinical medical ethics.
:: Some common arguments for eradication, such as its symbolic value or that it is a global public good, fail to convince.
:: The same considerations that should guide public health policy more generally – reducing the burden of disease equitably and efficiently – make eradication a compelling goal where it is feasible.