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 28 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2140
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2140
David Isaacs, professor of paediatric infectious diseases 1,2, Julie Leask, research fellow2,3
1 Department of Infectious Diseases, Childrens Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia, 2 University of Sydney, NSW, Australia, 3 National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, Childrens Hospital at Westmead
Correspondence to: D Isaacs davidi@chw.edu.au
Charles Helms and Philip Polgreen (doi:10.1136/bmj.a2142) believe mandatory immunisation is necessary to achieve good uptake, but David Isaacs and Julie Leask argue that it infringes autonomy and could backfire
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Healthcare workers should be immunised against influenza, for their own protection and to protect their patients against influenza. The issue is whether it is ethical and good practice to make immunisation mandatory.
John Stuart Mill, the British philosopher, famously wrote: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."1 This statement of what we now call the principle of autonomy, or a persons right to choose, invalidates any argument that we should force healthcare workers to be immunised for their own sake.2
The state sometimes exerts benign paternalism to coerce personal choice. Examples are the mandatory use of seat belts or of motorcycle helmets, where the infringement of autonomy is justified by the effect on public health, and where the intervention poses little or no harm to the individual and has been proved
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses