ERRATUMWe regret that, due to a technical error, the uncorrected version of Angus Dawson's article was printed in 19:1. We apologise to the author and reprint in full the corrected version of the paper on the following pages. A. Dawson et al.. Bioethics 2005; 19: 72–89. ABSTRACTThere are many different ethical arguments that might be advanced for and against childhood vaccinations. In this paper I will explore one particular argument that focuses on the idea that childhood vaccinations are justifiable because (...) they are held to be in the best interests of a particular child. Two issues arise from this idea. The first issue is how best interests are to be determined in the case of childhood vaccinations. The second issue is what follows from this to justify potential interventions within the family in relation to such vaccinations. I argue that best interests must be characterised objectively in such situations and that this means that, in at least some cases, parental decision‐making about vaccinating their children may be overridden. (shrink)

The World Health Organisation's programme for the eradication of poliomyelitis as currently practised in India raises many ethical issues. In this paper we concentrate on just two. The first is the balance to be struck between the risks and benefits generated by the eradication programme itself. The issue of risks and benefits arises in relation to the choice between two different vaccine types available for polio programmes: oral polio vaccine (OPV) and inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). OPV is the vaccine currently (...) used in the eradication campaign in India. We argue that given the current risks/benefits profile of this vaccine, there is an urgent need to review the programme and take remedial action to address existing problems (at least in India). The second issue we discuss is the fact that there is little effort to gain the informed consent of the parents of vaccinated children, as they are not currently told about the potential limitations of OPV or the possibility of vaccine-induced harm. We suggest that such a policy might be justifiable, given the importance of polio eradication, but only if there is a system of compensation for vaccine-induced harm as part of the eradication programme itself. There is a real danger that if these issues are not addressed then public trust in the eradication programme and vaccination programmes as a whole will be lost. (shrink)

The use of human tissue raises ethical issues of great concern to health care professionals, biomedical researchers, ethics committees, tissue banks and policy makers because of the heightened importance given to informed consent and patient autonomy. The debate has been intensified by high profile scandals such as the “baby hearts” debacle and revelations about the retention of human brains in neuropathology laboratories worldwide. Respect for patient’s rights seems, however, to impede research and development of clinical knowledge in contemporary health care. (...) The Common clinical endeavour argument and a Presumption for beneficial use argument suggest that the use of tissues for research and teaching in contemporary health care can respect patients and their values in multicultural communities where there are provisions for oversight and for opting not to contribute, both of which should respect the diverse views of different ethnic or cultural groups. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThere are many different ethical arguments that might be advanced for and against childhood vaccinations. In this paper I explore one particular argument that focuses on the idea that such vaccinations are justifiable because they are held to be in the best interests of a particular child. Two issues arise from this idea. The first issue is how best interests are to be determined in this case. The second issue is what follows from this to justify potential interventions within the (...) family in relation to such vaccinations. I argue that best interests must be characterised objectively in such situations and that this means that, in at least some cases, parental decision‐making about vaccinating their children may be overridden. (shrink)