The public health physician is concerned about the possibility that, at a nursery, this boy would have close contact with other children and might infect them with hepatitis B virus (HBV). HBV infection in children is often asymptomatic, and acute disease with severe complications is rare. However, children often become chronic carriers after infection, which may lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer. HBV carriers also remain life long sources of infection to others and hence contribute to the spread of disease. HBV is mainly spread via blood and semen. Transmission through saliva, though unlikely, is certainly possible, especially where the boy shows a high HBV viremia [1]. The risk of transmission in day care is low, but has been reported and confirmed by genotyping [2–6]. The theoretical routes of transmission are direct through small wounds and, more important, by child bites. Indirect transmission is also possible through the sharing of utensils including toothbrushes, and, to a lesser extent, the sharing of toys that children may put in their mouth. Only very few countries with low incidence and prevalence of HBV infection, have not yet included hepatitis B in their universal childhood vaccination program. Universal vaccination prevents (most) day care transmission. This case occurred in TheNetherlands, and as The Netherlands does not have a universal HBVvaccination program, one could assume that most of the children in this nursery would be susceptible to HBV infection. However, there seems to be no scientific consensus that the vaccine does offer full protection against the G145R-HBV-mutant. While animal studies suggest that the vaccine does protect against this mutant [7] there remains ongoing uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine [8]. The case description presents several policy options: preventing the child from attending the nursery; allowing him to go but with strict hygienic measures at the nursery; and offering vaccination to all other children at the nursery. All these possibilities may be detrimental to the child’s welfare because he will be treated differently by care-givers and other parents. And even if day care staff and other parents are not informed which child is the source of risk, it may be difficult to keep it a secret. This would be more so if care-givers are informed and subsequently are more attentive to possible risk-contacts of the boy. Other parents may find out about the identity of the child and try to avoid contact between him and their own children. Moreover, the theoretical possibility that this child may be infected with a virus against which there is less protection could easily lead them to overestimate the risks of infection. Bioethical Inquiry (2008) 5:87–89 DOI 10.1007/s11673-008-9088-3