g. sexual behaviour). The routine exclusion of particular populations from pre-market clinical trials creates a prima facie vulnerability in children, women, older people, and aboriginal

peoples owing to fact that evidence of safety and effectiveness is often minimal or non-existent. In certain cases, it may be necessary to focus monitoring activities on these populations to determine if they are actually at greater risk of harm. Harm could be a direct result from an adverse event following immunization, diminished vaccine effectiveness, or behavioural change that puts them at risk of harm [10] and [34]. In addition, the risk-benefit ratio is not the same for all sub-groups in a population: differences in Rucaparib order genotype

and the health status of individuals can be reasonably expected to render some populations more at risk from adverse events and diminished effectiveness than others [10] and [33]. It may also be the case that their inability to mount an effective immune response to a vaccine also renders them more vulnerable to infection from the disease public health agencies are trying to prevent. In the common context of scarce resources and little capacity for post-market monitoring activities, this consideration could be used to justify the prioritization of surveillance and research on these populations, in order selleck compound library PDK4 to mitigate this kind of vulnerability and in order to provide alternative protective measures where necessary. However, this obligation needs to be considered in light of the potentially stigmatizing effect of targeted monitoring activities. Many vaccinations are only effective if high levels of uptake are achieved in order to get the protective effect of herd immunity. This can only be accomplished if the public trusts public health actors and regulators and distrust can be engendered when the public feels that regulators and public health

officials are not trustworthy. It is therefore important that conflicts of interest on the part of researchers involved in pharmaco-epidemiological research and regulators appropriately declare and manage conflicts of interest, and that regulators take account of the potential for bias in research findings by researchers with ties to industry [26]. Anticipatory decision-making engenders public trust, as opposed to reactive decision-making. Finally, being explicit about how decisions around vaccine safety and effectiveness are made and communicating with the public in a transparent fashion about the risks and benefits of vaccines is essential. Bioethical analysis of post-market vaccine monitoring and regulation reveals the tensions that can exist between ethical concerns.