uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Vaccine hesitancy and trust: Ethical aspects of risk communication
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics. (CRB)ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9683-7005
2018 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, ISSN 1403-4948, E-ISSN 1651-1905, Vol. 46, no 2, p. 182-188Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2018. Vol. 46, no 2, p. 182-188
Keyword [en]
Vaccination, ethics, risk communication, measles, H1N1, trust, responsibility
National Category
Medical Ethics
Research subject
Ethics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-329097DOI: 10.1177/1403494817727162ISI: 000429934600004PubMedID: 28847220OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-329097DiVA, id: diva2:1139663
Available from: 2017-09-08 Created: 2017-09-08 Last updated: 2018-06-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1403494817727162

Authority records BETA

Nihlén Fahlquist, Jessica

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nihlén Fahlquist, Jessica
By organisation
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics
In the same journal
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
Medical Ethics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 113 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf