Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Who calls the shots? The ethics of adolescentself-consent for HPV vaccination
  1. Suchi Agrawal1,
  2. Stephanie R Morain2
  1. 1 Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
  2. 2 Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Stephanie R Morain, Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA; stephanie.morain{at}


While the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is medically indicated to reduce the risk of genital warts and certain types of cancer, rates of HPV vaccination repeatedly fall short of public health goals. Individual-level factors contributing to low vaccination rates are well documented. However, system-level barriers, particularly the need for parental consent, have been less explored. To date, there is no legal or ethical consensus in the USA regarding whether adolescents might permissibly self-consent to the HPV vaccine. Consequently, there is considerable variability in medical practice at the provider and state level. In this essay, we explore the ethical acceptability of vaccinating adolescents for HPV without parental consent. We argue that the same ethical considerations that justify permitting minors to consent to treatment for sexual and reproductive health care—namely, public health benefit and adolescents’ developing autonomy—similarly justify permitting minors to consent to HPV vaccination. Based on this analysis, we conclude that allowing adolescents to self-consent to the HPV vaccine is ethically justifiable and should be reflected in US state policies.

  • applied and professional ethics
  • public health ethics
  • primary care
  • paediatrics
  • law

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors SA conceived of the paper and authored the first draft. SRM advised on the ethical analysis and critically revised the manuscript for intellectual content. Both authors jointly approve of the submitted version of this manuscript.

  • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you