Final answer:
Health-care providers must navigate the complex interplay between respecting patient autonomy and fulfilling their ethical duty of beneficence in the context of vaccination promotion. Policies regarding the refusal of service to unvaccinated patients and insurance coverage for antivaxxers are ethically complex and involve care ethics, public health, and patient rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to the role of health-care providers in relation to promoting or enforcing universal vaccination, a subject that not only bears medical implications but also enters the ethical, legal, and social domains of healthcare. Health-care providers face a complex balance between respecting the principle of autonomy, which allows patients to make their own health care decisions, and the principle of beneficence, which urges actions that benefit others. While it is true that health-care workers can influence parents' decisions regarding vaccinations, the extension of this influence to persuasion is ethically contentious. Providers may indeed be reluctant to treat unvaccinated patients and this raises further questions about the healthcare providers' rights and responsibilities. The issues of whether health-care providers have the right to refuse service or insurance companies have the right to deny coverage are deeply intertwined with ethical considerations about patient autonomy, public health, and care ethics, which emphasizes understanding and compassionate care in resolving conflicts.
It is also worth acknowledging that in some circumstances, as indicated by rulings from the Supreme Court, the government is mandated to provide healthcare, which suggests an intricate relationship between individual rights and collective responsibilities. However, in the context of universal vaccination, the tension between individual choice and public welfare is particularly stark, leading to potential conflicts regarding the scope of healthcare provider influence and potential governmental intervention.