Background: In recent years healthcare professionals have faced increasing concerns about the value of childhood vaccination and many find it difficult to deal with parents who object to vaccination. In general, healthcare professionals are advised to listen respectfully to the objections of parents, provide honest information, and attempt to correct any misperceptions regarding vaccination. Religious objections are one of the possible reasons for refusing vaccination. Although religious objections have a long history, little is known about the way healthcare professionals deal with these specific objections. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the responding of healthcare professionals to parents with religious objections to the vaccination of their children.
Methods: A qualitative interview study was conducted with health care professionals (HCPs) in the Netherlands who had ample experience with religious objections to vaccination. Purposeful sampling was applied in order to include HCPs with different professional and religious backgrounds. Data saturation was reached after 22 interviews, with 7 child health clinic doctors, 5 child health clinic nurses and 10 general practitioners. The interviews were thematically analyzed. Two analysts coded, reviewed, discussed, and refined the coding of the transcripts until consensus was reached. Emerging concepts were assessed using the constant comparative method from grounded theory.
Results: Three manners of responding to religious objections to vaccination were identified: providing medical information, discussion of the decision-making process, and adoption of an authoritarian stance. All of the HCPs provided the parents with medical information. In addition, some HCPs discussed the decision-making process. They verified how the decision was made and if possible consequences were realized. Sometimes they also discussed religious considerations. Whether the decision-making process was discussed depended on the willingness of the parents to engage in such a discussion and on the religious background, attitudes, and communication skills of the HCPs. Only in cases of tetanus post-exposure-prophylaxis, general practitioners reported adoption of an authoritarian stance.
Conclusion: Given that the provision of medical information is generally not decisive for parents with religious objections to vaccination, we recommend HCPs to discuss the vaccination decision-making process, rather than to provide them with extra medical information.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469371 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-231 | DOI Listing |
Int J Gynaecol Obstet
January 2025
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aga-Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya.
This article examines existing literature on oncofertility in Africa and explores the barriers to oncofertility care. Patient-level barriers include lack of awareness about fertility preservation options, financial constraints, and the heavy emotional burden of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Healthcare-provider barriers encompass lack of awareness, prioritization of prompt cancer treatment, and implicit biases.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Relig Ethics
March 2024
Institute of Philosophy at Jagiellonian University in Kraków (Poland) and head of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics at Jagiellonian University, where he leads the project BIOUNCERTAINTY funded by a European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant.
A dogma accepted in many ethical, religious, and legal frameworks is that the reasons behind conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare cannot be evaluated or judged by any institution because conscience is individual and autonomous. This paper shows that this background view is mistaken: the requirement to reveal and explain the reasons for conscientious objection in healthcare is ethically justified and legally desirable. Referring to real healthcare cases and legal regulations, this paper argues that these reasons should be evaluated either ex ante or ex post and defends novel conceptual claims that have not been analyzed in the debates on CO.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDrug Alcohol Depend
February 2025
Recovery Research Institute, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 151 Merrimac Street, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Introduction: Celebrate Recovery (CR) is a new, rapidly growing mutual-help organization (MHO) based on Christian principles and is the largest religious MHO in the US. However, very little is known about CR empirically.
Methods: Secondary data analysis of the National Recovery Study (NRS) (Kelly et al.
BMC Med Educ
January 2025
Honors College, University of Houston, Houston, USA.
Background: Physicians' refusal to perform medical procedures that they deem contrary to their conscience may threaten basic human rights and public health. This study aims to investigate the thoughts and attitudes of future physicians on conscientious objection (CO) and thus contribute to the discussions from a country more heavily influenced by Eastern values.
Methods: A cross-sectional multi-center study was conducted among medical students country-wide, where 2,188 medical students participated via an online survey.
J Med Ethics
December 2024
Uehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Conscience is typically invoked in healthcare to defend a right to conscientious objection, that is, the refusal by healthcare professionals to perform certain activities in the name of personal moral or religious views. On this approach, freedom of conscience should be respected when the individual is operating in a professional capacity. Others would argue, however, that a conscientious professional is one who can set aside one's own moral or religious views when they conflict with professional obligations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!