Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 19 November 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2588
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2588
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Both sides debating mandatory flu vaccination for healthcare workers canvass central arguments,1 2 but key issues require further exploration.
Neither side acknowledged that health care differs fundamentally from other work. Its primary aim is not individual protection but protection of patients by reducing nosocomial flu. John Stuart Mills would support, not oppose, a mandatory programme.2
The autonomy argument focuses on individual rights of healthcare workers, ignoring the rights of others. Ethical assessment requires us to balance competing rights, and should include a patients right to a safe healthcare environment. Australian States and Territories already require hepatitis B vaccination for those who are not immune and provide patient care. Individual autonomy is not catered for, with healthcare workers exercising their right to choose more fundamentally: either work in health care and minimise the risk of infecting patients or work elsewhere.
Increasing flu vaccine coverage among healthcare workers is possible using incentives and
Stephen B Lambert, medical epidemiologist1
1 Queensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases Laboratory, Royal Childrens Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia
sblambert@uq.edu.au
Read all Rapid Responses