Humans have been a communal species since inception and continue to be so to this day. Because of this, if even a small scale of a measured population becomes severely ill, the entire remaining population and surrounding area is thrown into absolute chaos. In fact, we have seen these circumstances throughout history and in the recent COVID-19 pandemic yet, some of us have forgotten that the only way this chaos can be curbed, is by enacting a mandatory vaccination policy. Since COVID-19 however, vaccination mandates have become an uneasy topic of conversation in the United States for essentially one main reason, some U.S citizens do not like to be told what to do with their body and what to place inside it, further believing their bodily autonomy to be absolute. Data shows that this ideology recently became more widespread from an increase of mistrust of government and pharmaceutical companies, and from political beliefs and affiliations. Nevertheless, what the data also shows is that these same individuals were asserting their right to bodily autonomy against a vaccination mandate in an unduly aggressive manner, and on a very erroneous understanding of the governing jurisprudence, policies and modern scientific data surrounding said vaccination mandates and large scale disease outbreaks. This article therefore aims to provide a clear and extensive understanding of the proposition that, while bodily autonomy is favored in other aspects of life, this right can fail with respect to deadly disease outbreaks and mandatory vaccinations as there is presently no other practical or feasible alternative. Specifically, this article introduces and/or reminds the U.S. public of well-established governing case law, relevant historical and scientific information and the pertinent legislative authority surrounding vaccines, bodily autonomy, and vaccination mandates.

暂无摘要。

Mandated participation in parent education programs is a common practice across the United States for families who are undergoing divorce or who are involved in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems. Mandates to participate in parenting programs create substantial challenges for families, service providers, and service systems. Furthermore, the type and quality of the parenting services accessed vary widely, and their impacts need to be better understood. To address this need, an overview of the current state of the empirical literature on the impacts and outcomes of mandated parenting interventions for divorce and in child welfare and juvenile justice settings is provided, and suggestions to the field are offered to refine research related to mandated parenting programs. Given the challenges that mandated parenting programs pose, an alternative approach that views parenting through a public health lens is highlighted to build on the growing body of research on the impacts of population-wide applications of parenting support programs, and as a possible way to decrease the number of parents who are required to attend parenting programs. Opportunities to advance universal parenting support within a range of community settings, including primary care, early childhood education, and community mental health systems are offered. Gaps in knowledge regarding mechanisms of action of universal supports and impacts on the number of parents mandated to treatment are highlighted, and future directions for research in this area are suggested.

BACKGROUND: Compulsory drug rehabilitation is a major governmental response to illicit drug use in Vietnam and other countries in Asia. Long-term compulsory rehabilitation is associated with negative health, social and economic outcomes. The transition to community-based services for people released from compulsory drug rehabilitation has been problematic not only in Vietnam. This study utilized the WHO Health System Building Blocks Framework to examine the opportunities and challenges for people with substance use disorders (SUD) who are released from compulsory drug rehabilitation back into the community.
METHODS: Between October 2021 and August 2022, we interviewed people with SUD who had recently returned from or were preparing to leave compulsory drug rehabilitation (n = 25), their family members (n = 20) and professionals working in the field of drug rehabilitation (n = 28) across three cities in Vietnam. Additionally, we conducted a review of policy documents to complement the interview data.
RESULTS: The study identified opportunities and challenges within Vietnam\'s drug rehabilitation system concerning leadership and governance, financing, workforce, information systems and service delivery for people with SUD. Key opportunities include a legal framework that emphasizes community-based support for people with SUD, a government-funded national network of lay social workers, and ongoing efforts to connect people to community-based services. We found significant challenges caused by the lack of clear instructions for implementing supportive policies, inadequate funding for community-based services, persisting stigma from providers towards people with SUD and unavailability of community-based drug treatment other than methadone.
CONCLUSIONS: Vietnam continues with compulsory drug rehabilitation yet endorses recovery-oriented policies to address substance use issues. Substantial challenges hinder the effective implementation of these policies. Our study recommends reinforcing existing policies and enhancing recovery-oriented community-based services by improving the quality of data collection, building capacity of lay social workers who facilitate linkages to services and expanding community-based drug treatment options.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the association between parental attitudes towards mandatory and recommended vaccines in the National Immunization Plan (NIP) of Italy and their acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5-11 years.
METHODS: Using data from approximately 42,000 children in Southern Italy, parental attitudes towards previous vaccinations were examined. Mandatory and recommended vaccinations were considered for the analysis, with the first shot of each schedule being considered relevant, regardless of when it was administered or whether the recommended number of doses was administered. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to analyze associations between the covariates of age, sex, adherence to mandatory vaccinations, number of recommended vaccinations, and COVID-19 vaccination.
RESULTS: The COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was 50.7% in our sample. We revealed a strong association between parental attitudes towards previous vaccinations and the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. Mandatory vaccinations under the NIP showed the highest acceptance rates, and among non-mandatory vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine had the highest acceptance rate, potentially due to its co-administration with the hexavalent vaccine. The study identified a trend of lower COVID-19 vaccine coverage in younger children.
CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores the importance of co-administration approaches and well-planned vaccination schedules in enhancing vaccine coverage. It suggests that integrating newer vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccine, into established vaccination schedules could potentially increase acceptance and coverage. The findings highlight the urgency of addressing vaccine hesitancy, particularly in the pediatric population, to ensure high vaccination coverage and effective disease control. Further research is needed to explore the potential strategies to increase vaccine acceptance.

This contribution examines the compatibility of mandatory vaccination with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) through an analysis of the relevant ECHR rights and related case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). By focusing on Article 8 (Right to Private Life), Article 2 (Right to Life) and Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion) ECHR, we formulate conditions under which mandatory vaccination legislation is justified. With that, this analysis aims to provide national legislators with guidance on responsible legislative policy. Additionally, this article discusses the legal framework underlying the Dutch vaccination policy, including developments therein since COVID-19. Furthermore, the role of the European Union in the context of vaccination is briefly discussed. The importance of an extensive societal and parliamentary debate before implementing a mandatory vaccination policy is stressed, as is the need for proportionality in enforcement.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine mandates are controversial, and people vary widely in their preferences to support or reject vaccine mandates. For some, vaccine mandates represent a commitment to reduce harm and support public health. For others, vaccine mandates are viewed as a threat to individual freedom and a violation of personal choice. This manuscript investigated support for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate among COVID-19-vaccinated individuals and identified differences by demographic characteristics and COVID-19 experience.
METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were given to COVID-19-vaccinated individuals at a vaccination clinic in South Texas in the U.S. with the goal of identifying attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccination and willingness to support a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Associations of interest were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Approximately half of the sample was of Hispanic or Latino origin (48 %); most respondents identified as White (59 %), followed by 12 % who identified as Asian. Overall, 59 % of participants supported the possibility for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Preliminary data showed significant racial differences in willingness to support a possible COVID-19 vaccine mandate (χ2 (1, n = 893) = 26.7, p < .001, phi = .17); 80 % of Asian people reported support for COVID-19 vaccination mandate compared to 50 % to 57 % for other racial groups. Significant differences also emerged by ethnicity (χ2 (4, n = 1033) = 7.12, p = .008, phi = .08) whereby a higher percentage of Latino participants (66 %) reported willingness to support a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Similarly, significant differences were found by age (χ2 (4, n = 1045) = 20.92, p < .001, phi = .21), yet no significant differences were found by sex or previous COVID-19 diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Support for a COVID-19 vaccination mandate is controversial even among vaccinated people. Identifying and understanding cultural and contextual factors that underlie differences in attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination mandates is essential to advance dialogue and inform educational health campaigns to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates.

I investigate the causal effect of education on time preferences. To deal with the endogeneity of education, I exploit exogenous variation in education imposed by a Turkish school reform that raised compulsory education from five to eight years. I find that education causes individuals to make more patient inter-temporal choices but does not induce them to report being more patient. I also provide evidence that the effect of education on patient inter-temporal choices does not operate through changes in financial well-being.

The present study employed a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of a 6-hr mandatory stress management and well-being program for preservice teachers. A program group of 157 preservice teachers (Mage = 22.46 years; 88% women) completed the program as well as baseline, postprogram, and follow-up measures. A comparison group of 63 preservice teachers (Mage = 23.50 years; 85% women) completed measures at similar time points but did not receive the program. All participants completed measures of stress, coping self-efficacy, anxiety, mindfulness, and well-being. The program group completed additional measures of well-being, affect, and program satisfaction. Findings revealed significant improvements in key indices of mental health and well-being for those in the program group relative to the comparison group and high ratings of program satisfaction. Discussion focuses on implications of present findings for mandatory inclusion of wellness curriculum in teacher preparation programs with instruction on enhancing their own and their students\' well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, three European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy) announced and/or implemented mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for high-risk groups in the general population. Besides the ethical justification for this policy, it is important to assess and quantify the effectiveness of the mandate in raising vaccination rates.
Controlled interrupted time series analysis of first-dose vaccination rates in the targeted age groups (Greece: ≥60 years; Italy: ≥50 years) relative to a control group (Greece: 50-59 years; Italy: 25-49 years) between week 35/2021 and week 50/2022. For Austria an uncontrolled analysis was performed, as the vaccine mandate targeted all adults ≥18 years.
Announcement of mandatory vaccination substantially increased vaccination rates in the targeted age groups compared to control in both Greece (RR = 4.36, 95 % CI: 3.57-5.32) and Italy (RR = 2.90, 95 % CI: 2.37-3.56), an effect which persisted throughout the study period. There were 176,428 (95 % CI: 164,097-187,226) mandate-attributable first-dose vaccinations in Greece and 316,192 (95 % CI: 282,467-346,678) in Italy, most of which occurred before the mandate came into effect. In Austria no discernible increase in vaccination rates was observed after the announcement of mandatory vaccination. At the end of the study period, 9.5 % of ≥60 year-olds in Greece, 4.9 % of ≥50 year-olds in Italy and 13.8 % of ≥18 year-olds in Austria remained unvaccinated.
In Greece and Italy - though not in Austria - simple announcement of a vaccine mandate rapidly increased COVID-19 vaccination rates in the targeted age groups, without fully closing the vaccination gap. Mandatory vaccination appears to effectively target complacency but not vaccine hesitancy, and its public health benefits need to be weighted against possible detrimental effects on confidence and trust.