Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:52:24.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Beginning to End: The Importance of Evidence-Based Policymaking in Vaccination Mandates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Daniel G. Orenstein  and
Y. Tony Yang
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Used appropriately, reliance on science distinguishes public health from policymaking driven more by theory and opinion and enhances trust in public health interventions. Evidence-based vaccine policymaking aims to control communicable disease by urging decision makers to base policies on the best available evidence rather than politics or personal views. The results of this approach, such as smallpox eradication, have been dramatic. Historically, mandatory childhood vaccination has been perhaps the most successful evidence-based tool in combating many epidemics. Philosophically, vaccination mandates correspond to the legal system’s dual role in codifying what society deems undesirable behavior (non-vaccination) and declaring beneficial social norms and values consistent with understandings of the social contract. Despite their effectiveness and philosophical grounding, vaccination mandates present serious legal and ethical questions. Public health policymakers have a continuing responsibility to rely on evidence not only as a basis for generating policy, but also for evaluating and improving elements of its legal design.

Type
JLME Supplement
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue S1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 99 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Eyler, J. M., “Smallpox in History: The Birth, Death, and Impact of a Dread Disease,” Journal of Lab Clinical Medicine 142, no. 4 (2003): 216–220.Google Scholar
Law, S., “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination, Private Choice, and Public Law,” University of California Davis Law Review 41, no. 5 (2008): 1731–1772.Google Scholar
Craig, A. et al., “New Adolescent Vaccines: Legal and Legislative Issues,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 4, Supp. (2007): 106–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures, States with Religious and Philosophical Exemptions from School Immunization Requirements (December 2012), available at <http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx> (last visited January 29, 2015).+(last+visited+January+29,+2015).>Google Scholar
197 U.S. 11 (1905).Google Scholar
See Law, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Andrus, J. K. et al., “A Model for Enhancing Evidence-Based Capacity to Make Informed Policy Decisions on the Introduction of New Vaccines in the Americas: Paho's Provac Initiative,” Public Health Reports 122, no. 6 (2007): 811–816.Google Scholar
See Law, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Jacobson, 197 U.S. 11 at 27, 39.Google Scholar
Lucas, A., “Mandated Human Papillomavrius Vaccination: An Overextension of Jacobson v. Massachusetts,” Thomas M. Cooley Journal of Practical and Clinical Law 10, no. 2 (2008): 253–283.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Law, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures, HPV Vaccine Policies, available at <http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/hpvvaccine-state-legislation-and-statutes.aspx> (last visited January 29, 2015).+(last+visited+January+29,+2015).>Google Scholar
D.C. Code § 7–1651.04(b)(1)(B)(iii)(2008); Va. Code Ann. § 32.1–46(D)(3)(2008); Presley, M. K., “The Constitutionality of an HPV Mandate and Its Implications for the Minor Patient,” American Bar Association Health Lawyer 25, no. 2 (2012): 1–7, at 1.Google Scholar
Cherkin, M., “Three Shots in the Arm: The HPV Vaccine and Inclusive Health Policy,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Social Change 15, no. 3 (2012): 475–499.Google Scholar
Markowitz, L. E. et al., “Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP),” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 56, no. RR02 (2007): 1–24; Dunne, E. F. et al., “Recommendations on the Use of Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in Males – Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 60, no. 50 (2011): 1705–1708.Google Scholar
See Lucas, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
Stokley, S. et al., “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage among Adolescents, 2007–2013, and Postlicensure Vaccine Safety Monitoring, 2006–2014 – United States,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 63, no. 29 (2014): 620–624.Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120365(b); Or. Rev. Stat. § 433.267(B); Wash. Admin. Code § 28A.210.090.Google Scholar
H.B. 14–1288, 69th Gen. Assemb., Second Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, Omer, S. B. et al, (letter to the editor), “Vaccination Policies and Rates of Exemption from Immunization, 2005–2011,” New England Journal of Medicine 367, no. 12 (2012): 1170–1171; Yang, Y. T. Debold, V., “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effect of Nonmedical Exemption Law and Vaccine Uptake on Vaccine-Targeted Disease Rates,” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. 2 (2014): 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, Phillips v. New York, No. 14–2156-cv (2nd Cir. filed June 10, 2014).Google Scholar