Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Editorial

Vaccination: refuting the refusals

CMAJ October 03, 2000 163 (7) 801;

A few months ago an outbreak of 19 cases of measles occurred in a small community in British Columbia. Almost all of the cases were children whose parents had decided against immunization, for philosophical reasons. The outbreak was traced to 2 index cases in Alberta, siblings aged 2 and 3 years, who had recently returned to Canada from Bolivia, where the exposure probably occurred. These 2 children came into social contact with the other children while they were attending, along with 1500 other people, an outdoor concert in Saskatchewan.1 Large outbreaks of measles still occur in communities where vaccine coverage is low. Between November 1999 and January 2000, 103 cases were reported in a religious community in the United Kingdom, and 2300 cases, with a 20% rate of serious complications and 3 fatalities, were reported in the Netherlands during the last 9 months of 1999.2

The reasons for vaccination refusal are complex, varied and not infrequently wistful. They include religious or philosophical beliefs, concerns about safety and efficacy, beliefs that vaccine- preventable diseases do not pose serious health risks, objections to mandatory programs and excessive government interference and objections to immunization as being ”unnatural.”3 Some of these objections were raised in the 19th century, when religious convictions, suspicion of new technology and objections to government intrusion fuelled large-scale resistance to smallpox vaccination.4 These days, as we know, immunization programs have become a victim of their own success. It is worth reminding patients that (to take only one example) the complications of measles include otitis media, pneumonia, croup, diarrhea and encephalitis, and that the fatality rate is 2‐3 per 1000 cases.5

There are some readily available resources that clinicians may find useful in their efforts at persuasion. The Canadian Immunization Guide contains a succinct table comparing the risks of the disease with the risks of vaccination (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/publicat/immguide/comp_e.html), and the Canadian Immunization Awareness Program summarizes common misconceptions about immunization on its question-and-answer Web page (www.ciap.cpha.ca/q&a.htm). Patient beliefs that vaccination is ”unnatural” may be particularly challenging for physicians, who are technologists and interventionists by training, more apt to maintain the motorcycle than to leave it to Zen.6 As Robert Pirsig demonstrated in his best-selling book, the dialogue between the motorcycle maintainer and the antitechnologist is fraught with irritation. Debating with patients who refuse vaccination may sometimes be futile. But to counter the surrender to nature of the anti-immunization lobby we can at least offer Pirsig‚s insight:

I disagree with them about cycle maintenance, but not because I am out of sympathy with their feelings about technology. I just think that their flight from and hatred of technology is self-defeating. The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha — which is to demean oneself.6 — CMAJ

References

  1. 1.
    Measles: British Columbia [news brief]. Ottawa: Division of Disease Surveillance, Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada; 2000 Aug 4. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/bid/dsd/news/nb3100_e.html (accessed 2000 Sept 7).
  2. 2.
    Outbreaks of measles in communication with low vaccine coverage. Commun Dis Rep Wkly 2000;10:29.
  3. 3.
    Six common misconceptions about vaccination. Ottawa: Division of Immunization, Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/bid/di/mscn_6e.html (accessed 2000 Sept 7).
  4. 4.
    Streefland P, Chowdhury AM, Ramos-Jimenez P. Patterns of vaccination acceptance. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:1705-16.
  5. 5.
    Chin J, editor. Control of communicable diseases manual. 17th ed. Washington: American Public Health Association; 2000. p. 330.
  6. 6.
    Pirsig R. Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values. New York: William Morrow & Co; 1974.

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire