U.S. to stop recommending most childhood vaccines, leaving decisions to individual doctors.
The Trump administration is contemplating a significant departure from longstanding federal guidelines regarding childhood vaccinations, potentially encouraging parents to engage their healthcare providers in discussions about vaccines instead of following federal recommendations. This shift is being considered to bring U.S. immunization practices more in line with Denmark’s vaccination model.
Currently, the U.S. vaccination schedule mandates protections against 18 infectious diseases, including respiratory viruses such as COVID-19, a stark contrast to Denmark’s approach, which recommends vaccines for only 10 diseases. Notably, Denmark does not advocate for the vaccination of children against influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), or chickenpox. The proposal, still in deliberation, is reflective of criticism from some officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has called for a reevaluation of the childhood vaccine schedule, despite affirming his support for it during Senate confirmation hearings.
Importantly, health department officials maintain that any discussion about potential changes remains speculative until officially confirmed. This proposed overhaul aligns with President Trump’s previous statements labeling the U.S. vaccine schedule as an “outlier” among developed nations, and he underscored the importance of preserving access to existing vaccines.
Public health experts have raised concerns about the implications of adopting a Danish-style vaccination model, citing differences between the two countries in terms of population, healthcare systems, and disease prevalence. Some experts argue that simply transplanting practices from Denmark—characterized by its small, universal healthcare system—could have adverse outcomes in the larger and more diverse landscape of U.S. public health.
The proposed method for implementing this policy shift, referred to as “shared clinical decision-making,” suggests that healthcare providers—such as physicians and pharmacists—would guide parents, but the government would reduce its role in issuing strong endorsements for vaccines. Critics argue that this might undermine public confidence in vaccinations by creating an impression of uncertainty regarding their efficacy and necessity.
This debate has been further intensified by claims from figures within the anti-vaccine community, who question the current vaccination guidelines and suggest that an overload of vaccines may be linked to rising health concerns among children. The issue is particularly contentious within the context of existing state laws mandating certain vaccinations to attend school, many of which are not included in Denmark’s immunization strategy.
As these discussions continue, public health advocates stress the necessity of basing vaccination policies on robust scientific evidence rather than anecdotal or politically influenced arguments. The situation remains fluid, and as consultations unfold, it remains to be seen how such a shift in policy would ultimately be executed and its subsequent impact on public health.
Media News Source
