Search

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations for the use of vaccines against diseases caused by human papillomaviruses (HPV) from the WHO position paper on Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO position paper – October 2014, recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the most recent developments in the field of HPV vaccines and the WHO position on HPV vaccine schedules in females. This document replaces the first WHO position paper on vaccines against diseases caused by HPV published in 2009 [2].Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its April 2014 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html.

This paper provides an examination of the ethics of disease eradication policies. It examines three arguments that have been advanced for thinking that eradication is in some way ethically exceptional as a policy goal. These are (1) global eradication has symbolic importance, (2) disease eradication is a global public good and (3) disease eradication is a form of rescue. It argues that none of these provides a good reason to think that individuals have special duties to facilitate eradication campaigns, or that public health authorities have special permissions to pursue them. But the fact that these arguments fail does not entail that global disease eradication is ethically problematic, or that it should not be undertaken. Global eradication of a disease, if successful, is a way of providing an enormous health benefit that stretches far into the future. There is no need to reach for the idea that there is a special duty to eradicate disease; the same considerations that are in play in ordinary public health policy – of reducing the burden of disease equitably and efficiently – suffice to make global disease eradication a compelling goal where doing so is feasible.