Abstract：
Vaccine mandates can take many forms, and different kinds of mandates can implicate an array of values in diverse ways. It follows that good ethics arguments about particular vaccine mandates will attend to the details of individual policies. Furthermore, attention to particular mandate policies-and to attributes of the communities they aim to govern-can also illuminate which ethics arguments may be more salient in particular contexts. If ethicists want their arguments to make a difference in policy, they should attend to these kinds of empirical considerations. This paper focuses on the most common and contentious vaccine mandate reform in the contemporary United States: the elimination of nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) to school and daycare vaccine mandates. It highlights, in particular, debates about California\'s Senate Bill 277 (SB277), which was the first successful recent effort to eliminate NMEs in that country. We use media, secondary sources, and original interviews with policymakers and activists to identify and evaluate three ethics arguments offered by critics of SB277: parental freedom, informed consent, and children\'s rights to care and education. We then turn to one ethics argument often offered by advocates of SB277: harm prevention. We note, however, that three arguments for mandates that are common in the immunization ethics literature-fairness/free-riding, children\'s rights to vaccination, and utilitarianism-did not play a role in debates about SB277.
摘要：
疫苗授权可以采取多种形式，不同类型的任务可以以不同的方式暗示一系列的价值观。因此，关于特定疫苗授权的良好道德论点将涉及各个政策的细节。此外，注意特定的任务政策，以及他们旨在治理的社区的属性，也可以阐明哪些道德论点在特定情况下可能更加突出。如果伦理学家希望他们的论点在政策上有所作为，他们应该注意这些经验性的考虑。本文重点介绍了当代美国最常见和最具争议的疫苗授权改革：取消学校和日托疫苗授权的非医疗豁免（NME）。它突出了，特别是,关于加州参议院第277号法案(SB277)的辩论，这是该国最近首次成功消除NME的努力。我们使用媒体，次要来源,以及对政策制定者和活动家的原始访谈，以确定和评估SB277批评者提供的三个道德论点：父母自由，知情同意,以及儿童受照料和教育的权利。然后，我们转向SB277倡导者经常提出的一种道德论点：预防伤害。我们注意到,然而,免疫伦理文献中常见的三个关于授权的论点——公平/搭便车，儿童接种疫苗的权利，和功利主义-在关于SB277的辩论中没有发挥作用。
