↓ Skip to main content

Ethical considerations for vaccination programmes in acute humanitarian emergencies

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ethical considerations for vaccination programmes in acute humanitarian emergencies
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, February 2013
DOI 10.2471/blt.12.113480
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keymanthri Moodley, Kate Hardie, Michael J Selgelid, Ronald J Waldman, Peter Strebel, Helen Rees, David N Durrheim

Abstract

Humanitarian emergencies result in a breakdown of critical health-care services and often make vulnerable communities dependent on external agencies for care. In resource-constrained settings, this may occur against a backdrop of extreme poverty, malnutrition, insecurity, low literacy and poor infrastructure. Under these circumstances, providing food, water and shelter and limiting communicable disease outbreaks become primary concerns. Where effective and safe vaccines are available to mitigate the risk of disease outbreaks, their potential deployment is a key consideration in meeting emergency health needs. Ethical considerations are crucial when deciding on vaccine deployment. Allocation of vaccines in short supply, target groups, delivery strategies, surveillance and research during acute humanitarian emergencies all involve ethical considerations that often arise from the tension between individual and common good. The authors lay out the ethical issues that policy-makers need to bear in mind when considering the deployment of mass vaccination during humanitarian emergencies, including beneficence (duty of care and the rule of rescue), non-maleficence, autonomy and consent, and distributive and procedural justice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 188 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 22%
Student > Bachelor 32 17%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 9 5%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 32 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 29%
Social Sciences 22 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 46 24%
Unknown 38 20%