A Defense of Compulsory Vaccination
A Defense of Compulsory Vaccination
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10730-013-9221-5
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Flanigan, Jessica
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Flanigan, Jessica
拒绝接种疫苗会伤害并冒着伤害无辜旁观者的风险。人们无权伤害无辜者或给他人带来致命的风险，因此在这些情况下，拒绝接种疫苗的权利无可厚非。因此，强制接种疫苗是合理的，因为可以正确禁止不接种疫苗，就像其他种类的有害和危险行为也可以正确禁止一样。我用随机枪声进行类比来说明这一点。我认为，拒绝接种疫苗在道德上类似于向空中开枪并危及无辜的旁观者。通过将拒绝接种疫苗重新定义为有害和鲁莽的行为，我的目的是将疫苗辩论的焦点从非接种者的宗教和拒绝接种权利转移到其他人免受传染病感染的权利。宗教自由和知情同意权并不赋予非疫苗接种者伤害无辜旁观者的权利，因此为了反疫苗运动的潜在受害者，强制疫苗接种要求是允许的。
Vaccine refusal harms and risks harming innocent bystanders. People are not entitled to harm innocents or to impose deadly risks on others, so in these cases there is nothing to be said for the right to refuse vaccination. Compulsory vaccination is therefore justified because non-vaccination can rightly be prohibited, just as other kinds of harmful and risky conduct are rightly prohibited. I develop an analogy to random gunfire to illustrate this point. Vaccine refusal, I argue, is morally similar to firing a weapon into the air and endangering innocent bystanders. By re-framing vaccine refusal as harmful and reckless conduct my aim is to shift the focus of the vaccine debate from non-vaccinators' religious and refusal rights to everyone else's rights against being infected with contagious illnesses. Religious freedom and rights of informed consent do not entitle non-vaccinators to harm innocent bystanders, and so coercive vaccination requirements are permissible for the sake of the potential victims of the anti-vaccine movement.