Normative analysis of parent's vaccine rejection attitudes based on major ethical theories

In history, before a vaccine, many infectious diseases detach millions of people from life, and children were most affected. As far as smallpox produced epidemics, various techniques for survival were developed and eventually promoted to modern vaccination. However, despite scientific developments, voices against the vaccine have never been silenced. As herd immunity was achieved, parents' attention turned to the side effects of vaccines, conspiracy theories were added to philosophical and religious arguments, resistance to vaccines increased. Ethical dilemmas arise on the one hand, as the parents are decision-makers for their child in the context of freedoms, and on the other hand, because of the possibility of harming society from the epidemic disease that may be caused by not being vaccinated. Due to the increasing opposition to vaccination in recent years, some obligations have been imposed on childhood vaccinations as a result of measles outbreaks in the USA and Europe. In this study, anti-vaccine movements are evaluated within the historical process, and today's anti-vaccine arguments are also included. In this normative study, parents' childhood vaccination rejection attitude was analyzed ethically according to the arguments of the frequently referenced ethical theories in medical ethics. The necessity of childhood vaccinations was examined by referring to the political-philosophical views of these ethical theories' founders. Whether the parent's denial of childhood vaccines is morally legitimate or not was justified with arguments by referring to ethical theories, and some suggestions have been made at the end of the study.