Adolescent Vaccines: What’s the Point?
by Sharon A. Falkenheimer
In the last half-century, childhood vaccines
have been a great blessing, greatly decreasing death and disability due to
infectious diseases. Most grandparents today are old enough to recall the
scourges of polio, whooping cough, and other childhood infectious diseases.
Visions of children languishing in iron lungs in institutions and of the
braces and wheelchairs of victims of paralytic polio come to mind. Some may
even suffer or know adults with the fatigue, pain, and muscle weakness of
post-polio syndrome, which affects twenty to forty percent of polio
survivors many years after the attack.1 And who can forget the distinctive
“whoop” of diphtheria, which gives “whooping cough” its name? Yet, today,
thanks to routine immunizations, few medical personnel outside developing
countries have ever seen a polio victim or witnessed an infant struggling
against diphtheria's ravaging cough.
Most childhood immunizations are given in infancy. Adolescents routinely
receive only a booster for tetanus. Yet the protection afforded by some
vaccines decreases over time. Thanks to television news and documentaries,
the best-known and most dramatic example of this is probably meningococcal
meningitis, which can cause death in hours or leave its young survivors
amputees. Other diseases, like diphtheria, are less severe in adolescents,
but may cause uncomfortable and persistent symptoms and extended illness,
requiring absence from school. Other infections, such as those causing
sexually transmitted diseases, put many adolescents at special risk as they
respond to raging hormones in this era of casual sex.
Increasingly, vaccines are or are becoming available for each of these
categories of disease. The Food and Drug Administration soon will consider
whether to recommend vaccination of adolescents against meningitis,
diphtheria, and the virus causing genital warts and increased risk of
cervical cancer.2
Decisions of this type usually involve assessing the risk and benefits of
the immunization. Like any medicine or treatment, vaccines are not without
risk, yet their risk is usually much lower and less serious than the risk of
disease. For example, vaccines may cause pain or inflammation at the
injection site, fever, or allergic responses, while, as noted above, the
disease may be disabling or life-threatening. A small number of vaccines,
such as smallpox vaccine, bring with them a low, but measurable risk of
death and should be used only when risk of disease is significant, such as
in first responders or after a biological attack.
Decisions on whether to mandate immunizations should be based on specific
situations, such as those that make infection more likely, and the nature of
the disease they are designed to prevent. Highly contagious and fulminate
diseases that strike without warning, such as meningococcal disease, put
those nearby at risk. It is reasonable to mandate vaccination against such
diseases for those attending school or university, entering the military, or
accepting employment in situations where many people spend extended time
together. In some cases, it may be reasonable to grant exemptions for those
with moral or religious objections to vaccination. This is especially true
for diseases unlikely to spread in an environment where most are immunized
or for which effective post-exposure prophylaxis is available. Meningococcal
disease may be such a condition, since a decision not to be vaccinated is a
decision to risk personally contracting the disease, but is unlikely to pose
a significant risk to those exposed to that individual, since a drug is
available to prevent the disease and most would have received the vaccine.
In the rare situations in which exemptions might put others at high risk,
mandating vaccination of students should not greatly limit the education of
those with moral or religious objections in this era of home schooling and
distance learning.
Except for those in the military, who enter voluntarily and require high
readiness for immediate deployment, it is harder to justify mandating
immunization against diseases likely to bring significant symptoms and
require extended recovery. In these cases, like diptheria, the FDA should
refrain from mandating vaccination, but should make a recommendation whether
to inform the public of the vaccine’s benefits and make it available on a
voluntary basis.
Vaccines, such as those against sexually transmitted diseases, could greatly
decrease the frequency and effects of these diseases. As with diphtheria,
the FDA should evaluate whether to inform the public and recommend
vaccination on a voluntary basis. However, the FDA should make clear which
groups are at risk and of what disease(s). Those not engaging in high-risk
behaviors would not benefit from this type of vaccine, unless it has other
benefits. For example, the hepatitis B vaccine may be wise for medical
personnel and others at risk of blood contact who would not otherwise
benefit from it if they were sexually abstinent or monogamous.
The future of vaccination is bright. The number of vaccines available
continues to increase. Immunizations can prevent an increasing array of
infectious diseases. New types of vaccines against diseases, such as cancer
and diabetes, may be on the horizon. New methods of vaccination may even
arise with the advent of genetic engineering and nanotechnology. Wisdom is
needed in evaluating which immunizations to recommend, at what life stage,
and to which risk groups. Mandated vaccination should be limited to those
diseases and situations where disease in an individual puts those with whom
they come into contact at significant risk of serious illness. CBHD
1Christine A. Maxey, “Living With Post-Polio
Syndrome,” HealthLink, July 28, 2001 http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/996372413.html
(accessed April 18, 2005).
2Anita Manning, “Here Come the Vaccines,”
USA
Today, March 7, 2005 http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-07-vaccines-usat_x.htm
(accessed April 18, 2005).
|
Printer- Friendly
Version
Send Page To a Friend
|
|
Copyright 2005 by The Center for Bioethics and Human
Dignity
The contents of this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
CBHD, its staff, board or supporters. Permission to reprint granted as long as The Center for Bioethics and
Human Dignity and the web address for this article is referenced.
|
|