HLSC220 Essay: Childhood Immunisation Ethics in Australia

This essay examines the ethical dimensions of mandatory childhood immunisation in Australia, focusing on the application of bioethical principles such as autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. It explores the conflict between individual rights and public health, analyzing the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination. The essay delves into ethical theories and concepts relevant to the topic, considering parental rights, the role of the state, and the concept of herd immunity. It discusses the complexities of informed consent, conscientious objection, and the allocation of healthcare resources. The essay provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical considerations surrounding childhood immunisation, presenting both sides of the argument and highlighting the ethical dilemmas involved. It references relevant literature and provides a balanced discussion, concluding with a summary of the key ethical challenges and considerations.

CHILDHOOD
IMMUNISATION
SHOULD BE
MANDATORY IN
AUSTRALIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
BODY..............................................................................................................................................3
Bioethical principles related to childhood immunization in Australia........................................3
Ethical theories and concepts.......................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
The topic of childhood immunization in Australia in particular is one necessary aspect
that should be focused upon. Childhood immunization basically refers to protection of a child
against specific diseases that might harm their health majorly. This enhances the immunity of the
child to face these diseases. As this is for the life and the health of a child there are many ethical
aspects that are included in this sector in particular. This report basically gives information
regarding the ways by which the bioethical principles are mainly related to the aspect of
childhood immunization and also the report gives the ethical theories as well as concepts that
relate to the topic as well.
BODY
Bioethical principles related to childhood immunization in Australia.
Bioethical principles are basically the rights of the individuals in particular for the
purpose of self determining as well as respecting the ability of that particular individual to make
decisions that are informed and are regarding the personal matters mainly in the aspect of
freedom (Baksheev. & et.al. (2018). The major four bioethical principles are beneficence,
autonomy, justice as well as non maleficence. Each of the principle of the bioethics basically
represents a different set of guidance as well as knowledge related to the topic in particular.
Further each of the principles are explained with relation to the topic of childhood immunization
in particular.
Autonomy.
The principle of autonomy basically includes the rights of a particular individual
regarding the self- determination as well as the respect related to the ability for making decisions
that are informed and related to personal matters (Veatch. (2020, July). This basically means if
the patient and as in this case the patient is a child hence all decisions are to be taken by the
families of the patient, need to be in accordance to them. These decisions can be harming their
interests or their health but if they want to or prefer to do something or get vaccinated, then only
they have to do so. It is their decision. The major conflict is between the principle of autonomy
and the principle of beneficence or the principle of non maleficence. And also, there is conflict
between the principle of justice and the principle of autonomy in particular.
In the case of childhood immunization in particular it is necessary to take permission
from the parents or the guardians of the child who is particularly concerned with the situation in

particular. But it should totally not depend upon this specific principles because all the parents
are not very educated about the importance and the relevance of the vaccination. Mainly, it is
necessary to understand the overall background and that should particularly be explained by
professionals. Hence, this principle should not be taken into major consideration in this situation.
Justice.
The principles of justice basically related to the allocation of the health resources as well
as the decision regarding that who will receive the treatment and then selection of the most
appropriate and the most suitable selection of the participants of the research (Saloxiddinovna.
(2022). In the case of childhood immunization one of the major aspect is to do good for people.
This helps in enhancing the health conditions of the children for the future and the present too.
The direct benefits to the individual of a vaccination is generally considered to be low,
and it is very challenging for maintaining an efficient level of the immunity in a population. This
is mainly because the education regarding the risks and the benefits is low and it has been seen in
the past few years even through voluntary vaccination in the countries the outbreak of the
diseases are occurring again due to insufficient degree of the herd immunity. In this case justice
is obviously relevant. Each and every patient should be seen equally and also treated in a manner
that is same in particular.
Beneficence.
This basically refers to the actions which promote the actions of welfare for others. In the
medical sense this basically means taking care of the needs and the requirements of the patients
as well as their families in particular (Arras. (2017).
It is very necessary that the vaccination mainly benefits the present and the future health
conditions of the child in particular. The decision regarding the immunization should be taken by
considering this aspect majorly as the benefits of on the health is the most relevant thing to be
considered.
Non maleficence.
Doing no harm to the patient is considered to be the most important focus and should be
given the highest importance or relevance in particular (Johnstone. (2022). The vaccination and
the immunization process is mainly taken into procedure for the purpose of benefiting the health
of the child and if it is not doing the same, then it becomes unnecessary for sure.

Ethical theories and concepts.
One of the major ethics to be taken care of is the decision- making capacity, to make
informed decision which can be consents or refusals, the individuals are required to have
minimum level of capacity for the purpose of receiving the information and further
understanding it and then making the choices and articulating them. Regarding the vaccination or
the immunization the parents are the ones who make decisions for their children. The state also
has a particular duty and also interest in protection of the child from any harm it can specifically
challenge the parental authority in the situations in which the child is put into any kind of risk.
The degree of the autonomy of the parents depends upon the intervention that is planned. The
role of the parental autonomy is also impacted by the principle of justice as well.
If the criteria regarding the informed refusal or the informed consent are specifically met
then the parents in some countries in particular can object to the vaccination on the conscientious
and personal grounds. It is basically questioned if the parents should be entitled for ascertaining
the conscientious objection to the vaccination. Among all the European countries only two
among them allowed the non- medical exemptions in the year 2020. This is also in the case of
medical professionals that have a right to refuse the certain treatments or certain procedures.
Some medical practitioners also refuse to treat the children who are not vaccinated as this is
opposing their ethics.
There are various contradictions regarding the childhood immunization in particular.
Vaccines are considered to be appropriate for the majority of the patients in particular but still
there are specific groups that have a wider and a bigger risk of developing events that are
adverse. Vaccinations can either be temporary or be permanent. When there can be increased risk
of the adverse impacts of the immunization the vaccination should be particularly delayed or
should be performed with immense caution so that it reacts in a manner that is proper.
Also, vaccinations are not mainly for the good of some specific people rather it is for the
benefit of a wide population that is impacted by the vaccination. Which obviously has and
includes diversity. These are a part of the common goods in the society which means no one can
be excluded from the benefits attained by the use of vaccination. As controlling the infectious
disease is an act inclined towards public interest, herd immunity basically is recognized as
common good. This can either mean the compulsion regarding the vaccination policy and in
some cases it might also be recognized as the constitutional rights.

As the herd immunity has been established and the direct advantages of the vaccination
that the individual in particular has been low the major challenge is maintaining a level of
sufficient immunity in the population in particular. Therefore, education regarding the policies,
the procedures and the diseases and the immunization is necessary and implementation from the
side of the public is also essential in particular.
The most appropriate policies that are specifically implemented regarding the
immunization of the children are mainly country specific in particular (Signorelli. & et.al.
(2018). The states are basically responsible for the establishment as well as the maintenance of
the herd immunity and the coercive measures that are to kept at a level that is minimally
sufficient. This includes the positive measures like the family tax benefit or the education tax
benefit and negative measures like financial fines of the prohibition for entering any
kindergarten.
CONCLUSION
This report gives description about the major ethical points that are important from the
point of the topic of childhood immunization and should be taken into consideration in
particular. These are mainly the autonomy versus the non maleficence or the beneficence in
particular. These topics are related to the aspect of childhood immunization in the above report
and further explained why it is important and the ways due to which these aspects are considered
to be necessary in the overall segment that is discussed in the report which is, childhood
immunization.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Arras, J. D. (2017). Principles and particularity: the roles of cases in bioethics. In Ethics and
Medical Decision-Making (pp. 99-130). Routledge.
Baksheev, A. I. & et.al. (2018). Bioethical principles and mechanisms for regulation of
biomedical research. Journal of pharmaceutical sciences and research. 10(4). 889-892.
Johnstone, M. J. (2022). Bioethics: a nursing perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Saloxiddinovna, I. D. (2022). The role of bioethics in the human-social system. ACADEMICIA:
An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal. 12(2). 119-123.
Signorelli, C. & et.al. (2018). Childhood vaccine coverage in Italy after the new law on
mandatory immunization. Ann Ig. 30(4). 1-10.
Veatch, R. M. (2020, July). Reconciling lists of principles in bioethics. In The Journal of
Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine (Vol. 45,
No. 4-5, pp. 540-559). US: Oxford University Press.