 |
The 130th Annual Meeting of APHA |
|
The 130th Annual Meeting of APHA |
Angus Dawson, Dr, School of English and Philosophy, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, United Kingdom, +44 1782 584082, a.j.dawson@keele.ac.uk
Objective: This paper seeks to use the recent debate over childhood MMR immunisation as an example to discuss what role (if any) public attitudes should play in public health policies.
Method: Firstly, different ethical arguments are presented that could be mounted in favour of public participation (by appealing to such concepts as autonomy, democracy, and public trust). Secondly, ethical arguments are considered that might be used to suggest the need for caution when it comes to public involvement in at least some forms of public health policy formulation and implementation. Different forms of public involvement are distinguished and discussed. The MMR example is chosen because uptake rates for such immunisations are dropping in many parts of the world despite the support of many influential organisations across the world (WHO, CDC, NIH, and the Department of Health in the UK) and, arguably, the support of the majority of the relevant published evidence.
Results: There are a number of possible factors that can contribute to public unease with such public health measures (e.g. role of the media; differing perceptions of risk; a growing lack of trust in science) but these findings can be taken into account in policy formulation in relation to public health issues.
Conclusion: Ethical public health policies need to be formulated in the light of evidence about public attitudes, but this does not mean that these attitudes should determine such policies.
Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the session the participant will be able to
Keywords: Immunizations, Bioethics
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.