The opposition to vaccinations is a well-known phenomenon that dates back to the Victorian age when it was self-limited by the awareness of the importance to be protected against fearsome infectious diseases. In the XX century, the mass use of vaccination has − instead − consented to eradicate or drastically reduce the burden of diseases such as smallpox and polio. These positive effects of the vaccination campaigns have blurred out, if not erased, the memory of the tragic consequences of the past’s widespread diseases, leading people to underestimate the severity of the harm that vaccinations prevent. In recent years, a complex mixture of contextual factors have promoted an amplification of that paradoxical situation, leading experts to study causes and consequences of the so called “vaccine hesitancy”. Several studies have shown the impact for children and for the community of the refusal or hesitation towards vaccinations from different points of view, including epidemiological, clinical, social and economic evaluation. This article provides an analysis of vaccine hesitancy from an ethical perspective: parental, professional and public responsibilities are analysed and described according to the “responsibility of the fathers towards the children”, as articulated by Hans Jonas in 1979.

Di Pietro, M. L., Poscia, A., Teleman, A., Maged, D., Ricciardi, W., Vaccine hesitancy: parental, professional and public responsibility, <<ANNALI DELL'ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ>>, 2017; 53 (2): 157-162. [doi:10.4415/ANN_17_02_13] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/114275]

Vaccine hesitancy: parental, professional and public responsibility

Di Pietro, Maria Luisa
Primo
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
Poscia, A
Secondo
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Teleman, Aa
Writing – Review & Editing
;
Maged, D
Penultimo
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Ricciardi, W
Ultimo
Membro del Collaboration Group
2017

Abstract

The opposition to vaccinations is a well-known phenomenon that dates back to the Victorian age when it was self-limited by the awareness of the importance to be protected against fearsome infectious diseases. In the XX century, the mass use of vaccination has − instead − consented to eradicate or drastically reduce the burden of diseases such as smallpox and polio. These positive effects of the vaccination campaigns have blurred out, if not erased, the memory of the tragic consequences of the past’s widespread diseases, leading people to underestimate the severity of the harm that vaccinations prevent. In recent years, a complex mixture of contextual factors have promoted an amplification of that paradoxical situation, leading experts to study causes and consequences of the so called “vaccine hesitancy”. Several studies have shown the impact for children and for the community of the refusal or hesitation towards vaccinations from different points of view, including epidemiological, clinical, social and economic evaluation. This article provides an analysis of vaccine hesitancy from an ethical perspective: parental, professional and public responsibilities are analysed and described according to the “responsibility of the fathers towards the children”, as articulated by Hans Jonas in 1979.
Inglese
Di Pietro, M. L., Poscia, A., Teleman, A., Maged, D., Ricciardi, W., Vaccine hesitancy: parental, professional and public responsibility, <<ANNALI DELL'ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ>>, 2017; 53 (2): 157-162. [doi:10.4415/ANN_17_02_13] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/114275]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ANN_17_02_13.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: articolo principale
Tipologia file ?: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 71.71 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
71.71 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/114275
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 16
  • Scopus 22
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact