Policy debates about immunization frequently focus on classic trade-offs between individual versus collective well-being. Publicly funded immunization programs are usually justified on the basis of widespread public benefit with minimal individual risk. We discuss the example of the policy process surrounding the adoption of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in Canada to consider whether public good arguments continue to dominate immunization policymaking. Specifically, we show how a range of stakeholders framed HPV vaccination as a personal-rather than a public-matter, despite the absence of a controversy over mandatory immunization as was the case in the United States. Our findings suggest an erosion of the persuasiveness of public good arguments around collective immunization programs in the policy discourse.
Notes
Cites: Vaccine. 2005 May 20;23(27):3519-2515855010
Cites: Vaccine. 2005 Mar 18;23(17-18):2363-615755629
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 7;355(23):2389-9117151362
Cites: JAMA. 2007 May 2;297(17):1921-317473303
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2007 May 10;356(19):1905-817494922
Cites: Can Commun Dis Rep. 2007 Feb 15;33(ACS-2):1-3117520773
Cites: Am J Nurs. 2007 Aug;107(8):23-417667381
Cites: CMAJ. 2007 Aug 28;177(5):484-717671239
Cites: CMAJ. 2007 Dec 4;177(12):1526; author reply 1527-818056605
Cites: Int J Health Plann Manage. 2008 Jan-Mar;23(1):69-7818317994