Risk perceptions and ethical public health policy: MMR vaccination in the UK

Abstract

This paper is concerned with how public health policy makers should respond to the public's perception of risks. I suggest that we can think of this issue in terms of two different models of responding to the public's view of such perceived risks. The first model I will call the "public perception" view (PP view) and the second the "public good" view (PG view). The PP view suggests that the public's perception of any risks is so important that public health policies should be formulated in direct response to knowledge about them. I will consider two possible ethical arguments that might be offered in support of such a view: the first argument is an "autonomy" argument and the second a "consequences" argument. I suggest there are serious problems with both arguments. I then outline an alternative model of public health policy formation that I call the "public good" or PG model. This model focuses on drawing distinctions between the clinical and the public health context, and argues that most of public health policy is primarily concerned with the creation and maintenance of various public goods. This latter fact means that the PP model is inappropriate for public health policy formation. © Springer-Verlag 2005.