visual argument

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Course

Date

Topic: Childhood Vaccination: Should it be a Matter of Choice?

Introduction

The intensity of a consequence depends on the choice that is to be made. The decision of whether something is to be considered a matter of individual preference should be based on how dire the consequences are in either case. Childhood vaccination is one such topic that has raised a lot of concerns and sparked debates all over the world. People indeed have different values and belief systems that make them react differently to the idea of vaccinating their children. Vaccine-preventable diseases are one of the major causes of childhood mortality; therefore, such medical decisions should not be up to the parents. This paper uses research-based evidence to discuss the importance of childhood vaccination.

In the article Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States, the authors argue that the decision of parents on whether or not to immunize their children is a factor of the public’s health (Hendrix et al.). This is a remarkable point of view as it keeps in mind the greater good. If in a sample of ten households, only eight agree to vaccinate their children, the children who have not been vaccinated run the risk of infection and possibly death. This argument leads to yet another one that claims the protection from herd immunity. While this fact has been clinically proven, it needs actual immunization for it to take effect. The author Delaney points out the flaws of herd immunity. In the same example of the ten households, those who agreed to vaccination may hear about the herd immunity. If five out of the eight opt out, it means that only 30% of the population is vaccinated in the end. In this case, heard immunity decreases because it works on the principle of numbers: “The greater the proportion of resistant individuals, the smaller the chance that infection occurs” (Delaney). Mandatory immunity may increase the numbers to 90%, and the 10% is left to cater for the resistant households. If this happens, the concept of herd immunity will have served its purpose.

Carly Fiorina suggested during a 2015 rally that “parents should not be forced to vaccinate their children” (Johnson). Her argument was based on people’s religious beliefs. If there is anything in the world today that causes division, then it is religion. Religion offers moral guidance to society and gives humanity a sense of origin and belonging. Such beliefs are considered sacred and should not be interfered with. It can also make people not to be open to technological changes. From the Islamic extremist point of view, for example, terrorism is not a crime. It is rather a religious duty permitted by the Quran as an act of doing God’s will (Venkatraman). Of course, the vaccination debate is no way close in magnitude to acts of terrorism, but if all religious beliefs (or religious extremism) could run the world, the result would be chaos, not to disregard the sovereignty of religion. Instead, if the religious beliefs of a parent could affect their children, law enforcement should intervene and do what it deems right for the health of the child. In other words, if a person chooses that their religion does not permit them to fulfill certain obligations, it is important to grant autonomy only if it does not affect other people around them, minors in particular.

Salmon and Omer’s, Individual freedoms versus collective responsibility, displays the difference between what an individual should have a choice over and what is their responsibility to the society. The two authors argue that when policies are made, they should always aim at serving the people they were meant for. In this case, the goal is to increase the benefits for as many people as possible while at the same time, protect their individual rights (Salmon, and Omer). The world right now is riddled with masses flooding the streets every now and then, demanding that their individual rights be protected. This in itself is also a right, as seen in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which supports the freedom of people to express their opinions and opinions, as long as they contribute to the development of the individuals and the society at large (Howie). That aside, people will always want to get what they feel is necessary for them. Some feel like they should have the freedom to choose whether or not they should vaccinate their children because they are just that, their children. There is, however, the aspect of the common good, the collective responsibility which each individual owes to the society. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that if a parent relentlessly refuses to vaccinate their children, their decision is to be respected if and only if the child faced a major health risk as in the case of an epidemic. It all boils down to a person’s collective responsibility. Parents have the mandate to ensure the health and safety of their children. If it takes mandatory vaccination to get parents to protect the health of their children, then it needs to be done.

Emily Barr offers a strict solution to the immunization debate. She writes in the article Parental Decision-Making on Childhood Vaccination that parents should at no point in time be forced to immunize their children. Judging by the research already carried out in this paper, her point of view is greatly flawed. As much as she backs her claims by saying that the reason behind lack of immunization is based on health issues, her straight “no” poses more questions. To a keen reader, the word no carries a lot of weight. Her argument is supposed to defend children who are exempted from immunization on medical grounds. What she fails to understand is that such a group can just be classified as an exception. Judging the fate of 100% of the people based on the deficiencies of a few 20% may not be the wisest move. Indeed, the wellness of every single human being matters, but the wellness of every single one may be as much as the people themselves. Since it is not possible to satisfy the needs of 100% of the people, the majority are always on the upper hand. This is the case with democracy, where 51% may have the chance to persuade the fate of the 49. Barr may have based her argument on this and saw that the weaker ones would be trampled upon. But as stated earlier, 20% can just be set apart from the entire population. It does not always have to be either left or right. When it comes to medical practice, a lot of exceptions are always made. If her idea is followed to the letter, many parents may be reluctant to vaccinate their children.

Conclusion

“Choices have consequences,” and in this case, the choice of whether to vaccinate or not may result in death. If the consequence of anyone’s action led to death, the most humane reaction to it would be to do anything that could hinder the possibility of a loss of life. Choices may be made out of a variety of justifications: religion, individual rights, health, autonomy, and so much more. Before anyone argues against the vaccination of their children or any other children whatsoever, they need to keep in mind that vaccination in itself is the reason why child mortality rates have dropped significantly around the globe since its inception. With diseases such as measles, influenza, and polio claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands of children around the globe, vaccination has a way of stopping this tragedy. Of course, there are always exceptions when it comes to the immunization of children. Logic states that there is no point in forcing immunization to a child if it is going to cause more harm than good. These exceptions need to prove themselves beyond reasonable doubt for them to pass the test. In the future, even if parents will not be forced to have their children immunized, strict guidelines should be taken to ensure that not everyone comes up with a reason why they should not. The question is, is it worth respecting an individual’s choices without considering the impact their decisions may have on the public?

Works Cited

Journal

Barr, Emily. "Should Vaccination Be Mandatory For Preschool Attendance?". The Journal For Nurse Practitioners, vol 11, no. 8, 2015, pp. 764-765. Elsevier BV, doi:10.1016/j.nurpra.2015.06.009. Accessed 18 July 2019.

Journal

Delaney, Molly. "The Flaws Of “Herd Immunity”: Whose Duty Is It To Protect The Very Young/Old, Pregnant, Vaccine Allergic, And The Immunosuppressed?". Journal Of Emergency Nursing, vol 41, no. 3, 2015, pp. 183-184. Elsevier BV, doi:10.1016/j.jen.2015.02.006. Accessed 2 Aug 2019.

Journal with Four Authors

Hendrix, Kristin S. et al. "Ethics And Childhood Vaccination Policy In The United States". American Journal Of Public Health, vol 106, no. 2, 2016, pp. 273-278. American Public Health Association, doi:10.2105/ajph.2015.302952. Accessed 2 Aug 2019.

Journal

Howie, Emily. "Protecting The Human Right To Freedom Of Expression In International Law". International Journal Of Speech-Language Pathology, vol 20, no. 1, 2017, pp. 12-15. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/17549507.2018.1392612. Accessed 2 Aug 2019.

Accredited Website

Johnson, Jenna. "Carly Fiorina: Parents Should Not Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children". The Washington Post, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/carly-fiorina-parents-should-not-be-forced-to-vaccinate-their-children/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.46df0f7bf27a . Accessed 18 July 2019.

Journal with Two Authors

Salmon, Daniel A, and Saad B Omer. "Individual Freedoms Versus Collective Responsibility: Immunization Decision-Making In The Face Of Occasionally Competing Values". Emerging Themes In Epidemiology, vol 3, no. 1, 2006. Springer Nature, doi:10.1186/1742-7622-3-13. Accessed 18 July 2019.

Journal

Venkatraman, Amritha. "Religious Basis For Islamic Terrorism: The Quran And Its Interpretations". Studies In Conflict & Terrorism, vol 30, no. 3, 2007, pp. 229-248. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/10576100600781612. Accessed 2 Aug 2019.