They include selfishness, virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism, and utilitarianism. People often combine principles to arrive at a good decision. Utilitarianism is used in this discussion. Utilitarianism is defined as “one should act so as to do the greatest good for the greatest number” (Baillie, et al, 2012, p. 4). From this perspective, the healthcare professional must evaluate the individual's right to autonomy and society's right to safety. Utilitarianism would require the doctor to do everything in his power to convince the patient to accept vaccination. To do this the healthcare provider would try to educate the patient about the possible (much later) side effects associated with vaccination. Then inform the patient of the real risks associated with forgoing vaccinations. As well as providing the patient with places to find reliable information (e.g. CDC, health department). It is also critical that the healthcare provider understands the many reasons an individual foregoes vaccination. Once this information is known, the healthcare provider can collaborate with other minds in the field to look for other ways to convince the individual to get vaccinated. Not just for their own good, but for everyone's good. However, if the patient, after being fully informed of all the facts surrounding vaccination, ultimately decides to forgo vaccination, the doctor must comply. However, before complying, they would exhaust all available resources to convince the patent to do what is in the best interests of not only the patient, but society as a whole. As I said there is no clear answer. The best solution is to involve everyone involved in the problem. While it is not possible to completely satisfy all parties involved, it is possible to find a balance between all concerned