The language of the unheard: Why measles vaccine hesitancy persists in Africa

Q3 Medicine
S. Pillay , C. Ewuoso , L.A. Tandwa
{"title":"The language of the unheard: Why measles vaccine hesitancy persists in Africa","authors":"S. Pillay ,&nbsp;C. Ewuoso ,&nbsp;L.A. Tandwa","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose of research and novel approach</h3><div>Childhood measles vaccinations have been a topic of interest again recently following the multitude of measles outbreaks worldwide. While the large number of deaths accompanying these outbreaks is due to several reasons, vaccine hesitancy seems to be the biggest cause. Vaccine mandates remain a common measure for fostering vaccine uptake and maintaining herd immunity. Arguments for (and against) measles vaccine mandates principally focus on scientific facts and consequences, herd immunity, and citizen liberties. Focusing attention primarily on measles vaccination and taking Africa as the context, we advance a different claim- that vaccine hesitancy in some cases is plausibly justifiable. Notably, we contend that vaccine hesitancy, in some circumstances, may be the language of the unheard or the failure to engage previous medical injustices. Thus, it requires us to think deeply about how relevant actors can amend the plight of these exploited communities. To interrogate this question, we draw on the theory of distributive justice grounded in African moral philosophies.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>This was a purely normative study. The research method comprised a literature search on the primary sources while research articles on the causes of measles outbreaks and vaccine hesitancy were reviewed. From these materials, using African moral values, we developed an ethical argument in support of the thesis.</div></div><div><h3>Findings and conclusion</h3><div>This research highlights that in Africa there is a moral duty to initiate measures to address the power dynamics (that is, where one party in the communal relationship is more powerful) and empower communities. Only then vaccine uptake campaigns can be successful.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101068"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525000271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of research and novel approach

Childhood measles vaccinations have been a topic of interest again recently following the multitude of measles outbreaks worldwide. While the large number of deaths accompanying these outbreaks is due to several reasons, vaccine hesitancy seems to be the biggest cause. Vaccine mandates remain a common measure for fostering vaccine uptake and maintaining herd immunity. Arguments for (and against) measles vaccine mandates principally focus on scientific facts and consequences, herd immunity, and citizen liberties. Focusing attention primarily on measles vaccination and taking Africa as the context, we advance a different claim- that vaccine hesitancy in some cases is plausibly justifiable. Notably, we contend that vaccine hesitancy, in some circumstances, may be the language of the unheard or the failure to engage previous medical injustices. Thus, it requires us to think deeply about how relevant actors can amend the plight of these exploited communities. To interrogate this question, we draw on the theory of distributive justice grounded in African moral philosophies.

Methodology

This was a purely normative study. The research method comprised a literature search on the primary sources while research articles on the causes of measles outbreaks and vaccine hesitancy were reviewed. From these materials, using African moral values, we developed an ethical argument in support of the thesis.

Findings and conclusion

This research highlights that in Africa there is a moral duty to initiate measures to address the power dynamics (that is, where one party in the communal relationship is more powerful) and empower communities. Only then vaccine uptake campaigns can be successful.
无声的语言:为什么麻疹疫苗在非洲持续犹豫
研究目的和新方法儿童麻疹疫苗接种最近在全球范围内爆发了大量麻疹疫情,再次成为人们感兴趣的话题。虽然伴随这些暴发而来的大量死亡是由若干原因造成的,但对疫苗的犹豫似乎是最大的原因。疫苗授权仍然是促进疫苗接种和维持群体免疫的常见措施。支持(和反对)麻疹疫苗授权的争论主要集中在科学事实和后果、群体免疫和公民自由。我们主要把注意力集中在麻疹疫苗接种上,并以非洲为背景,提出了一种不同的主张——在某些情况下,疫苗犹豫似乎是合理的。值得注意的是,我们认为,在某些情况下,疫苗犹豫可能是闻所未闻的语言或未能参与以前的医疗不公正。因此,它要求我们深入思考相关行为者如何能够改善这些被剥削社区的困境。为了探究这个问题,我们借鉴了以非洲道德哲学为基础的分配正义理论。这是一个纯粹的规范性研究。研究方法包括对主要来源进行文献检索,同时对有关麻疹爆发原因和疫苗犹豫的研究文章进行审查。从这些材料中,利用非洲的道德价值观,我们提出了一个伦理论点来支持这一论点。本研究强调,在非洲,有道德责任采取措施解决权力动态(即社区关系中的一方更强大)并赋予社区权力。只有这样,疫苗接种运动才能取得成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信