CaptainMoon811
Case 1: Mandatory Vaccination in Measles Outbreaks Background In…
Case 1: Mandatory Vaccination in Measles Outbreaks
Background
In 2005, the European Regional Office of the World Health Organization (WHO- EUR), which includes 53 countries, set the goal of eliminating measles in Europe in 2010 (WHO 2005). The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) declared the WHO Region of the Americas free from endemic measles in 2002 (Castillo- Solorzano et al. 2011). Nevertheless, that region has continued to experience peri- odic outbreaks, probably due to importation of measles from other parts of the world. In 2008, WHO’s Executive Board (EB) began to determine whether to extend the goal of eradicating measles to the rest of the world (WHO 2010a).
The decrease in measles cases after a vaccine was introduced in the 1980s made the WHO-EUR goal of eliminating measles in Europe realistic. However, in 2006- 2007, the vaccine coverage rates remained below 90 % in many European countries, and although the number of cases continued to fall, epidemic outbreaks still occurred periodically (Muscat et al. 2009). At the end of 2009, an explosion of outbreaks was recorded and the number of cases began to increase sharply. This upward trend con- tinued throughout 2010, when 30,639 measles cases were reported (WHO 2011). This forced WHO-EUR to postpone its eradication goal until 2015 (WHO 2010b).
The increase in measles cases can be attributed to the inability to achieve appro- priate levels of vaccine coverage (>90 %) either because people cannot access health services, or because they hold personal beliefs against vaccination (Muscat 2011). The latter group includes members of the anti-vaccination movement, which makes extensive use of the Internet and social networks to share ideas (Kata 2010). After rumors spread about an association between measles vaccination and autism, vaccine coverage rates decreased in countries such as the United Kingdom, where “anti- vaccination” sentiment has gradually grown during the past 10 years (Flaherty 2011).
Measles is a notifiable disease in the 53 WHO-EUR countries, all of which employ a two-dose regimen for immunization. However, measles vaccination is not mandatory in all WHO-EUR countries. A study of 29 of the 53 WHO EUR member countries showed that, in 2010, vaccination against measles was only obligatory for children in 8 of the 29 (Haverkate et al. 2012). Within the 21 remain- ing countries, vaccination was recommended but voluntary. The debate about which of the two positions, voluntary or compulsory vaccination, is better from an ethical point of view, remains open (Moran et al. 2008; Schröder-Bäck et al. 2009).
4 Disease Prevention and Control 105
Spain is one of the European countries where measles has reappeared. The first childhood immunization schedule (CIS) was introduced in Spain in 1975. In 1978, Spain began to vaccinate against measles (one dose at 15 months) which beginning in 1981 was administered as a measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Starting in 1990, a second dose at 11 years of age was introduced. In 2004, the age at which the second dose was administered was revised to 8 years of age. As a result, the illness almost disappeared over the course of a 20-year period: 220,096 cases in 1986, but only 17 cases in 2005. However, since that time, cases have increased, with periodic local out- breaks: 2006 (349 cases), 2007 (260 cases), 2008 (305 cases), 2009 (43 cases), 2010 (285 cases) and 2011 (3507 cases) (WHO 2012). In 2011, an infected person died.
In contrast with countries such as the United States, Spain has made childhood vac- cination voluntary and not a requirement for attending school (Colgrove 2006; Stadlin et al. 2012). However, the average vaccine coverage rates are high (>90 %) (Masa et al. 2010). This can be attributed largely to the public health system’s primary care teams, distributed throughout the country and composed of family doctors, pediatricians and nurses. Even so, there are still places where coverage is less extensive, particularly in poor parts of large cities with low levels of socioeconomic development.
In Spain, health professionals document administration of childhood vaccines in handwriting in a paper booklet maintained by the parents. They also register this information in the child’s medical record, which is commonly computer based. However, discrepancies can occur between the two vaccine registration systems.
4.9.2 Case Description
You are the chief public health officer in a province of Spain. One day, a pediatrician tells you about a 13-year-old who is suspected to have measles. The child and his family attended a wedding the week before. Within 10 days, six more people who also attended the wedding were diagnosed with measles and nine secondary cases are confirmed. Of the secondary cases, seven were thought to have been exposed at school and two were in the hospital emergency ward.
All cases occurred in a historic quarter of the city with a large degree of cultural, economic, religious, ethnic, and social diversity. This multicultural identity diverges from the relative homogeneity of the rest of the city.
The public primary school of the historic quarter is now the focal point of the outbreak. There are 216 students enrolled in the school. You order two initial public health measures outlined in the regional health ministry’s Alert Protocol for Measles: (1) that a letter be sent to parents asking them to bring their child’s vaccination booklet to the school, and (2) that a meeting be held with the parents to have health professionals inform them about the disease and the immunization process.
106 M.J. Selgelid
As a result of the letter, the parents of 137 children take the vaccine booklet to the school, which shows a low degree of measles vaccine coverage (60 %). Those children not immunized are then vaccinated with their parents’ consent. However, the parents of 79 children fail to bring the vaccine booklet to the school.
In the parent meeting, some of the parents express their support for the anti- vaccination movement. They express sentiments such as “the disease is a natu- ral process, so we prefer to organize measles parties;” “risk of measles is very low, but vaccines are toxic poisons;” “a lot of hidden complications of vaccines exist, for example, autism;” and “Big Pharma and politicians are looking out for profits, not for the welfare of our kids.” They also allege, “vaccination is not obligatory in Spain, and we have a right to educate our children in accordance with our values.” These remarks generated a heated dispute between parents for and against vaccination. The majority of parents seem misinformed about the risks and benefits of vaccination and do not even know the immunization status of their own children.
The next day, the measles outbreak at the school comes to the attention of the local and national media. Alarmist messages and negative stories about anti-vaccination groups grab headlines. There are stories that seem to blame the outbreak on the cultural diversity of the historic quarter. You worry that the negative media reports may stigmatize the people living in this quarter or, even more worri- some, blame specific religious or ethnic groups.
Therefore, you consider adopting additional public health measures such as maximizing surveillance in the city, controlling emergency rooms to decrease (or eliminate) transmission, and vaccinating health professionals and children under 6 months. You also consider having unvaccinated children stay home, but health authorities reject the idea, alleging it would violate the right to education. Little by little, a number of parents consent to having their children vaccinated, or the chil- dren are stricken and become immune.
Nevertheless, new cases linked to the school continue to occur. In the regional health ministry, attention is turned to the possibility of requiring vaccination via a court order, citing a fundamental law that enables such exceptional actions in public health emergencies.
Finally, a request is put to the judge to authorize the enforced vaccination of 35 children. He does and you inform the parents. Two nurses, accompanied by a police officer, visit the houses one by one. The majority of the parents give consent to the vaccination. Ten days later, only nine children remain unvaccinated as a result of the refusal of their parents. You inform the judge that the number is so low that the situ- ation of special risk generated has now been overcome. You suspend compulsory vaccinations.
Since the first case was diagnosed, 10 months have elapsed. A total of 308 cases have been confirmed, 96 in minors younger than 1 year old. And 71 patients required hospitalisation (23 %), including five adults.
4 Disease Prevention and Control 107
4.9.3 Discussion Questions
What are the values, ethical principles, and rights that come into conflict in this case? If it is not possible to respect all of them, how should they be prioritized?
Is the decision to allow unvaccinated children to attend the school justified?
Think of a solution that adequately balances the freedom of choice of parents who are against vaccination with the protection of the health of a community
where vaccination is not compulsory.
Was there sufficient epidemiological risk to justify the court order? Were there
other possible solutions? Once the judicial measure had been adopted, why was it not pursued to its conclusion? Does the argument to suspend administering vaccines provide sufficient grounds for this decision?
Once the outbreak has subsided, what measures should be introduced to avoid further outbreaks? If the vaccination rate in the country later falls and new out- breaks occur, should the government consider mandatory vaccination?
