Tension Between Individual Rights and Common Good in Healthcare Policies

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC’s) has a policy that requires
children between the age of 12-months and those between 4-6 years receive their first and
second measles vaccination respectively (Patel, 2019). This policy provides a good study of
the tension between individual rights and the need to serve the collective good in healthcare.
The tension between civic liberties and collective good in the context of healthcare has
existed for a long time but is often most pronounced when policies are implemented to
control infectious diseases. By their very nature, measures to control the spread of infectious
diseases, such as mandatory vaccinations, often involve curtailing individual liberties.
In the case of measles, studies have shown that the possibility of measles outbreak is
eliminated when 92% of the population is vaccinated (Dreisinger & Lim, 2019). Thus, the
collective good of having no measles outbreaks is pegged on over 90% of individuals
accepting to be vaccinated. Unfortunately, factors such as misinformation that links autism
with measles vaccination, has led to a significant rise in vaccine hesitancy among parents
with children who are within the vaccination age (Hotez, Nuzhath & Colwell, 2020). By
refusing to have their children vaccinated, such parents exercise their civic liberties.
However, their decisions harm the collective good as they increase chances of outbreaks of
measles which may cause deaths to other children. Thus, CDC’s policy of measles
vaccination exposes the tension between individual rights and collective because on the one
hand, forcing everyone to be vaccinated serves the common good but curtails individual
rights of those who are against the vaccination for their children. On the other hand, allowing
a significant number of children to go unvaccinated on account of their parent’s opposition to
the vaccination may protect individual rights but it harms the common good as it increases
chances of measles outbreak.
Apart from exposing the tension between individual rights and collective good, the
measles vaccination policy also brings to the fore various legal and ethical issues. Legally,
the Fourteenth Amendment of the American constitution protects the right to liberty of
individuals (Dreisinger & Lim, 2019). Thus, the right to be vaccinated or not to be vaccinated
is protected by the law. Healthcare ethics also support autonomy- one of its major ethical
principles. Autonomy is right of a patient to make informed decisions about their healthcare
(Nandifa, Jena & Joewana, 2020). However, both the principle of autonomy and the right to
individual liberties is not absolute. They have to be balanced with other key healthcare
principles – non-maleficence, and beneficence. These two principles require healthcare
providers to avoid doing harm to patients and serve the best interests of the patients
respectively. As measles can lead to death, ensuring that an individual is vaccinated
effectively serves both of these principles.

3

References

Dreisinger, N., & Lim, C. A. (2019). Resurgence of vaccine-preventable disease: ethics in the
pediatric emergency department. Pediatric Emergency Care, 35(9), 651-653.
Hotez, P. J., Nuzhath, T., & Colwell, B. (2020). Combating vaccine hesitancy and other 21st
century social determinants in the global fight against measles. Current opinion in
virology, 41, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2020.01.001.
Nandifa, V. N. P., Jena, Y., & Joewana, S. (2020). Beneficence is the highest moral
imperative of a doctor dealing with the poor quality of patient autonomy. Jurnal
Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical
Education, 9(1), 44-51.
Patel, M. (2019). Increase in measles cases—United States, January 1–April 26,
2019. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68.