Anthrax Vaccines: A Case Study

The argument encompassing whether or not parents should vaccinate their children is ongoing. It is a very interesting matter to learn about and I possess some strong feelings about the case. This issue interests me because there are parents who don’t have their children vaccinated, and there are parents who do have them vaccinated. But all these parents share one particular quality: they all would like for their kids to be safe.

Vaccination was first introduced globally for small pox and later on extended to other communicable diseases which are now known as vaccine preventable disease. Vaccination is beneficial both for individuals and community. This bring us to the ethical dilemma - Vaccination of a healthy child with the intention of protecting both the individual child and the community at the same time exposing the child to the theoretical risk of exposure to disease products whether live, attenuated or killed. There was a time when people never questioned the government or their physicians. Now because of more public awareness and accessibility to medical information, they are questioning the safety aspects of vaccines.

Vaccines are among the most affordable and successful public health tools for preventing disease, disability, and sometimes death. Not only do they protect a vaccinated individual from developing a potentially deadly disease, but they also lead to protecting an entire community by reducing the spread of infectious agents. Although vaccines have many beneficial factors to it, there are still some problems in using them. Many vaccines may include side effects that can lead to autism or even death. Vaccinations have many benefits including the prevention of certain diseases but they also can cause issues and be very riskful in using them to treat or prevent a disease. Some of these issues include the ethic dilemma behind the subject.

In this case study, there were a few incidents of violations of ethics. In 1998, Callahan recommends that researchers should follow the three ethical issues: Autonomy, beneficence, and human justice. Autonomy is the first ethical principle that a researcher should respect the participate and make sure that informed consent has been given. The participates of this study was not aware the risk or what the study was about and actually could not give consent legally because they were minors. Johnson and Tudor did not give full disclosure of this research to the minors, teachers, or matrons at the orphanage. Beneficence is the second ethical principle; the researcher should maximize

In current times, children are not getting infected with diseases in order to find curative vaccines, but they are being made part of clinical trials for studies of genetic screening, the enrollment of healthy children in studies of sibling bone marrow donation, and the use of hypothermia for neonates with asphyxia (Laventhal, Tarini & Lantos, 2012). These trial studies have become ethical dilemmas in pediatrics for various reasons, people believe that there are not strong enough regulations for these trials and also that children are not given the opportunity to make their own decisions, most of the time, because children are underage, parents are the ones who make the decision of making their children part of these studies. Current regulations for pediatric clinical trials only require the consent of one parent, unless they are high level risk trials, in which case both parents needs to give approval and the child must also assent. The issue of children given assent for high risk trials is controversial because how do we know that the children really understand the risks that are associated with the trials, do they fully understand that they could possibly get hurt and sometimes their lives can be in danger.

Hendrix, Kristin S., et al. "Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States." American Journal of Public Health, vol. 106, no. 2, Feb. 2016, pp. 273-278. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302952.

Only recently, a federal injunction lifted the act forbade mandatory anthrax vaccinations for members of the armed services. The service members that sued insisted that the safety of the vaccine was not fully determined and a federal court supported the claim until the FDA determined the safety of the product. Furthermore, claims by parents who suspect the development of Autism as a link to mandatory childhood vaccinations has provided additional legal action as the parents pursue injunctions to prevent continued vaccination of their children.

A recent controversy has been, whether parents should or should not be permitted to opt their children out of required vaccinations. Parents should not be able to opt out of required vaccinations because they are beneficial and can cause serious risks if not taken. In “Refusing Vaccinations Puts Others At Risk”, Ronald Bailey remarks that parents are putting others at risk by not vaccinating their children. In the article “The Return of Measles”, Seth Mnookin stated as well, that by opting out of vaccinations, others can be put in jeopardy. Although there is also another side of this controversy with people who believe parents have a right to opt their children out of vaccinations. In an excerpt from “Vaccinations and Free Will”. Jeffrey A. Singer implies that people cannot be forced to have their child receive a vaccination. Finally, in “The Science is Not Settled”, Sandy Reider claims that vaccinations cause further harm than good. While Reider and Singer claim that parents should be able to opt out, it is clear that parents should not be able to opt out because it places others around them in danger.

Immunizations were created to keep children and adults healthy and safe. Edward Jenner administered the world’s first vaccination known as the smallpox vaccine, which had killed millions of people over the centuries (). Jenner administered the vaccine on an eight year old boy who he exposed to the fluid of a cowpox blisters, the boy developed a blister which eventually went away. Jenner then exposed the boy to the smallpox disease and the boy did not get sick, this led to the smallpox vaccine and the drastic decline in the smallpox disease. Fast-forward three centuries later and the small pox diseases is eradicated do to people receiving the vaccine. Immunizations are extremely important to the world’s overall health. Babies and children are most vulnerable to disease because they are son young and their organs and bodies are growing at a rapid rate. It is important for children to be immunized against vaccine preventable diseases such as: rubella, diphtheria, and pertussis (whooping cough), and a host of other diseases. High vaccination coverage has significantly reduced vaccine-preventable disease morbidity and mortality worldwide, especially among children (Baggs et. al., 2011). While some people focus on the cons of vaccinations, there are many pros to children receiving vaccinations.

One of the most important decisions you can make for your child is whether or not to have them vaccinated. Not giving your child immunity to lethal infections based on personal or religious beliefs you have can endanger your child and many others. Recently, outbreaks of measles have occurred that have caused people to question what the role of the government is in this health issue (CDC, 2016). The utilitarian approach is one that focuses on the net good created by a choice and uses that good to justify it as ethical (Sheng, 1991). There are two sides of this debate, the “pro-mandate” and the “pro-choice” and both will be discussed. I will argue using the pro-mandate utilitarian approach that all children, without medical exemption, should

“Prevention is better than cure.” This common statement could not relate any better than it does with the controversy surrounding the morality, effectiveness, and safety of childhood immunizations. The major argument is whether or not laws should be established to declare vaccination mandatory for all children. “The US food and Drug administration (FDA) regulates all vaccines to ensure safety and effectiveness,” (ProCon.org, 2012) therefor there should not be any reason to risk the health of any child. Vaccinating our children not only ensures their safety but also that of their future to come.

To the average individual, the word ‘vaccination’ means to prevent illness. Vaccinations have many advantages; they allow us to be less susceptible to a variety of illnesses and diseases. Many individuals believe that vaccinations should not be mandatory. However, the benefits from vaccinations greatly outweigh the risks from side effects. The judgments are factual and ethical and are supported by testing and research findings from multiple sources.

I strongly argue that Andrew Wakefield’s unsubstantiated and unchecked studies caused more harm than the Stanford prison experiment. Though the Stanford experiment was bad in itself because it was not supervised and was allowed to “go past the second day” (Leithead, 2011), it only affected a couple of students who were volunteers. But Wakefield’s work made parents keep their children away from immunization, and this led to “Measles outbreaks in the UK in 2008 and 2009 as well as pockets of measles in the USA and Canada” (Rao & Andrade, 2011).

Imagine two children; one who has been completely vaccinated, and the other has never been vaccinated. Both children fall ill from the same virus, but the child who had been vaccinated fully recovers, while the child who was not passes away due to complications. That child’s life could have been saved if the child received the proper vaccinations. Ever since the invention of the Smallpox vaccine more than two centuries ago, there has been an abundance of controversy over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccinations and immunizations. It has recently been argued whether laws should be introduced that render some or all vaccines mandatory for all children. Parents, health care specialists, nurses, teachers, and children

“Proponents argue that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, and whooping cough, which once killed thousands of infants annually are now prevented by vaccination” (“Vaccines”). Many deaths occur simply because children, along with adults, do not get the required shots needed. Medical treatments are not given to do a person any harm, but to keep a person and environment safe. Kids being vaccinated will give them less of a possibility to obtain a disease that could lead to death. Benefits outweigh any possibility of risking accumulating a disease. When people say that vaccinations are harmful, does not necessarily mean to develop a deadly disease, simply means some small risks. “Vaccines are not entirely harmless, but the small risks are outweighed by the benefits of a disease prevention” (Offit). Indeed flu shots must be tested in order to be able to give anyone the shot. Receiving vaccinations is only meant to help people prevent many illnesses and deaths. Although some small risks could be accumulated, those small risks are very small possibilities of anything happening to anyone. Getting immunized is not a one-time thing; people must follow up on required dates to receive them.