Page 49 - Preventing pertussis in early infancy - Visser

often experience difficulties to base a decision on the available information. This makes it difficult to fulfil the prerequisites for voluntary vaccination in practice in contexts such as the Netherlands. But the question is, do the limitations of voluntary vaccination ultimately lead to the legitimisation of mandatory vaccination? Or does it merely indicate that people need support in choosing? Given the results of the case study presented here, and our knowledge of the results of other similar studies, we think the latter is the case. What this support should look like needs, however, further research. Here we want to indicate that providing adjusted information is probably not the only answer. Although many studies have investigated the information need of potential vaccine recipients and their frequent ‘misconception’ of it , it seems that just providing more, clearer, better accessible or more objective information and rectifying misconceptions is not enough to help them. The decrease of trust and the perceived bias of government information we identified in our case study explains that this will not likely help people to make their choice.
In addition to the provision of better information, we think more attention should be given to the role of values in decision making. Respondents in our case study ascribed values to the proposed vaccination and tried to relate these values to their own personal values, such as responsibility, freedom or safety, or to societal values such as justice or solidarity. Furthermore, they appreciated the discussion in the focus group setting, because it helped to articulate and share values and reflect on them together. As we observed that our respondents appreciated this shared reflection, we thought this might well hold a key to how we can support people in their informed and deliberate choice. It may be worthwhile, for example, to consider making a method or tool that assists individuals in making their own informed and deliberate choice in a more systematic way, facilitating reflection on their personal values and combining these with information, their personal experiences and their views on societal aspects of vaccination. Such a method or tool should accept that people nowadays encounter an abundance of information about vaccination in their surroundings, and should assist in evaluating it in order to prioritise on what information they want to act. This reflection can be individual, but we also think exchange with others should have a place in this tool, possibly through (digital) group consult. The function of this tool is to help people articulate what matters to them in their choice, and reflect about the information they collect in a more balanced way, taking personal values and societal perspectives into account. Eventually, the method should assist individuals in making their own choice. This can be a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, but at least it will not be arbitrary, as it will reflect the values they hold dear and their views on health issues and societal matters.
Mandatory versus voluntay
Mandatory versus voluntary
48
47