Peer-reviewed article
The intrinsic, instrumental, and symbolic values of sustaining childhood vaccination in conflict settings
Majdi M. Sabahelzain, Oliver Razum, Julie Leask, Diego S. Silva ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-sonnet-5-5This paper looks at the World Health Organization's Decision Framework for Vaccination in Acute Humanitarian Emergencies. The authors argue that it pays too little attention to sustaining vaccination as a matter of justice and human rights. They say children in conflict settings should have the same rights to life and health as children elsewhere. They propose a broader view that sorts the value of vaccination into three types: intrinsic, instrumental and symbolic. They conclude that global health actors should prioritise keeping up vaccine delivery for children during conflicts.
Key points
- The WHO Decision Framework for Vaccination in Acute Humanitarian Emergencies is described as the principal global guide for vaccination decisions in crisis settings.
- The authors say the framework gives insufficient attention to sustaining vaccination as a matter of justice and human rights.
- Vaccination should be seen as more than an emergency-response intervention.
- The benefits of vaccination in conflict settings are grouped as intrinsic, instrumental and symbolic.
- Because vaccines are valuable in all three ways, global health actors should prioritise sustaining vaccine delivery for children during conflicts.
Limitations
The abstract describes a conceptual, argument-based paper and reports no data or evaluation of an intervention. It names no specific conflict-affected countries, so the country scope is unclear (the AU and DE hints are not supported by the text).
Abstract
The World Health Organization's Decision Framework for Vaccination in Acute Humanitarian Emergencies remains the principal global guide for vaccination prioritization and decision-making in crisis settings. However, it gives insufficient attention to sustaining vaccination as a matter of justice, as a means of upholding established human rights norms and the values that vaccines provide in these contexts. We argue that, if children living in conflict settings are to enjoy the same fundamental rights to life and health as children elsewhere, vaccination must be recognized as more than an emergency‑response intervention. We therefore propose a broader perspective to support guiding decisions to sustaining vaccination services that enhance the medium- and long-term resilience of health systems, and justice in conflict settings. We categorize the benefits and values of vaccination in conflict settings into three types: intrinsic, instrumental, and symbolic. We contend that vaccines are valuable in all three ways during humanitarian emergencies, and that this overlapping value means global health actors should prioritize sustaining vaccine delivery for children during conflicts.