Vaccine components and constituents: Responding to consumer concerns

Vaccination remains a vital strategy in the prevention of infectious disease. Commercial vaccine formulations contain a range of additives or manufacturing residuals, which may contribute to patient concerns about vaccine safety. Primary health care professionals are well placed to address patient concerns about vaccine safety. We describe the key constituents present in vaccines, discuss issues related to safety and acceptability of these constituents, and provide a table highlighting constituents of commercially available vaccines in Australia.

Investigating the relationship between internet privacy concerns and online purchase behavior

Many organizations now emphasize the use of technology that can help them get closer to consumers and build ongoing relationships with them. The ability to compile consumer data profiles has been made even easier with Internet technology. However, it is often assumed that consumers like to believe they can trust a company with their personal details. Lack of trust may cause consumers to have privacy concerns. Addressing such privacy concerns may therefore be crucial to creating stable and ultimately profitable customer relationships. Three specific privacy concerns that have been frequently identified as being of importance to consumers include unauthorized secondary use of data, invasion of privacy, and errors. Results of a survey study indicate that both errors and invasion of privacy have a significant inverse relationship with online purchase behavior. Unauthorized use of secondary data appears to have little impact. Managerial implications include the careful selection of communication channels for maximum impact, the maintenance of discrete “permission-based” contact with consumers, and accurate recording and handling of data.

The UN Security Council and the question of humanitarian intervention in Darfur

This article explores the different moral and legal arguments used by protagonists in the debate about whether or not to conduct a humanitarian intervention in Darfur. The first section briefly outlines four moral and legal positions on whether there is (and should be) a right and/or duty of humanitarian intervention: communitarianism, restrictionist and counter-restrictionist legal positivism and liberal cosmopolitanism. The second section then provides an overview of the Security Council's debate about responding to Darfur's crisis, showing how its policy was influenced by both normative concerns and hard-nosed political calculations. The article concludes by asking what Darfur's case reveals about the legitimacy and likelihood of humanitarian intervention in such catastrophes and the role of the UN Security Council as the primary authorising body for the use of international force. The authors argue that this case demonstrates that for the cosmopolitan/counter-restrictionist case to prevail pivotal states need to put humanitarian emergencies on the global agenda and express a willingness to act without Council authorisation, though the question of how to proceed in cases where the Council is deadlocked remains vexed.