The challenge of improving immunization coverage: the New Zealand example.
Immunisation Advisory Centre, University of Auckland, PO Box 17360, Greenlane, Auckland 1051, New Zealand. .Expert Review of Vaccines (Impact Factor: 4.22). 01/2012; 11(1):9-11. DOI: 10.1586/erv.11.157
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper argues that significant aspects of the vaccination debate are 'deep' in a sense described by Robert Fogelin and others. Some commentators have suggested that such disagreements warrant rather threatening responses. I argue that appreciating that a disagreement is deep might have positive implications, changing our moral assessment of individuals and their decisions, shedding light on the limits of the obligation to give and respond to arguments in cases of moral disagreement, and providing an incentive to seek alternative ways of going on in the face of intractable moral disagreement. Non-coercive, non-reasoned strategies have been used or recommended to increase vaccination rates. Such strategies look problematic when judged by the standards of ideal moral and rational argumentation, but more acceptable if seen as responses to deep disagreements.HEC Forum 10/2013; DOI:10.1007/s10730-013-9227-z
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.