WHO SPEAKS FOR "WE" SPEAKS NOT FOR "ME" - THE VACCINATION DEBATE

Abstract

Vaccinations are widely regarded as one of the great modern medical advances having saved many lives, and many more from disabilities. However, the success of vaccinations has led to a conflict between the utilitarian ethics of the common good versus the deontological ethics of individual rights. Growing vaccine hesitancy and policies designed to force non-vaccinators to vaccinate inflame the debate. The key question examined is whether, in the case of vaccination, there is justification for limiting individual rights to choose as in Australia's "no jab no pay" policy which removes the possibility of conscientious objection. Examined in this way, it is concluded that it probably matters little whether non-vaccinators vaccinate or not. Because of the success of mass vaccination in Australia, the risks of infection and consequent morbidity/mortality are low - as are the risks of an adverse vaccination reaction. Having non-vaccinators vaccinate is likely to provide little gain, herd immunity levels will change very little. The debate distracts efforts from more promising unvaccinated target groups (those lacking access), and more generally, from other more useful public goods. It is concluded that promoting vaccination for the common good is to be encouraged, and so is the option allowing an individual to conscientiously object.