Throughout Canada, there are limited vaccination requirements for polio, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis prior to the school years, as New Brunswick and Ontario are the only provinces which enforce this mandate; furthermore, religious or medical exemptions are possible for some patients who qualify. However, due to the continued risk of developing diseases such as whooping cough as noted in a 2015 outbreak in New Brunswick (CBC News, 2015), it is likely that vaccinations as a mandate across Canada should be considered to ensure greater protection and safety for children against this and other diseases such as pertussis. In this context, understanding the ethical dilemmas associated with vaccinations is important because patient autonomy, confidentiality, and informed consent are of critical importance (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). From this perspective, the concepts of utilitarianism and deontology must be considered relative to vaccinations to determine if this violates any rules of ethics if mandates are created to require vaccinations for pertussis, for instance.
Utilitarianism and Deontology Regarding Vaccination Mandates
For children who are at risk of developing an infectious disease, it is often recommended to protect their health and safety with the use of vaccinations to improve immunity and to fight against disease risk. However, there are specific ethical dilemmas associated with vaccinations in the modern era that may limit parents’ desire to vaccinate their children for religious reasons or out of fear of developing other conditions such as autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, it is important to evaluate these ethical dilemmas and to determine if they may ultimately cause harm to patients who do not receive vaccinations.
From a deontological perspective, which considers the perspective and views of the patient above society with the intent to protect the patient even if it can pose risk or harm to society (Mandal et al., 2016). From this perspective, parents who do not elect to vaccinate their children are doing so for their own wellbeing and personal ethical views to protect them from unnecessary risk or harm (Mandal et al., 2016). Furthermore, this emphasizes the importance of doctor-patient interactions and what parents believe is best for their children which outweighs what is believed to be best for the greater good of society (Mandal et al., 2016). On the contrary, the utilitarian perspective is related to societal needs and expectations and supports what is best for the greater good of all persons rather than single individuals; in these examples, mandatory vaccinations are a good idea because they support public health initiatives to protect the health and safety of all persons and focus on what is best for them in a given situation or context (Mandal et al., 2016).
Conclusion
Vaccinations are a highly controversial topic for many reasons and demonstrate the importance of proper ethical-decision making for individuals and for society. Mandatory vaccinations support the utilitarian perspective which requires actions and ethical decision-making for the greater good of society and its people; therefore, public health mandates to require vaccinations support this ethical perspective. A contrarian view is represented by the deontological perspective which emphasizes what is best for the individual and his or her needs, even if it contradicts what is best for society. These opposing views are critical in understanding the ethical dilemmas surrounding vaccinations and why they continue to be problematic for many parents around the world.
- CBC News (2015). Whooping cough outbreak jumps to 47 cases. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/whooping-cough-outbreak-1.3293947
- Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical parasitology, 6(1), 5.
