Argument Against Mandatory Screening

Recently, many diseases that had been eradicated because of childhood vaccinations have been making an appearance. Health officials are concerned that diseases will spread and lives will be lost. Officials all agree that vaccinations will benefit the population. Some parents feel it is an infringement on the right to keep the children healthy and safe. Vaccinations should be mandatory for all children because it will prevent diseases from spreading, protect future generations, and save children and parents time and money.

Diseases and illnesses are studied constantly by doctors and scientists trying to find a cure for them. Plague and disease once ravaged our world killing thousands, with no hope or cure to prevent them from occurring. Today, however, is different. Technology is more advanced than ever, and people are living longer than ever before. Life expectancy in the United States has gone up by more than 30 years in the last decades. It isn’t by luck that many diseases now cease to exist, but through extensive studies, and research. The medical field is at the height of its studies with more people being cured of diseases than ever before. Most of this is to the credit of doctors and scientists developing vaccinations that help the body create antibodies, which help fight away diseases, and give the body immunity. I believe that forced vaccinations in children should be mandatory as they have the potential to prevent life threatening diseases, and save countless lives. Though many are against forced vaccinations and say they can cause mental illnesses or brain damage, this has not been proven. The rewards far out way the slight risk, if risk at all of the vaccination having side effects. The individuals who are not vaccinated are left vulnerable to illness, and can potentially infect those around them as well. Leaving scare of an epidemic, and wide spread of a virus. Forced vaccinations in the United States have been beneficial by preventing young children from contracting certain

Opel and Diekema (2012) say that the incidence of a disease or to develop a serious condition from the disease is not usually high enough to warrant a mandate for vaccination even though there is a general understanding that the risks of a disease outweighs the risks of the vaccine. I think that because there is a potential for harm to other children that no matter how high the incidence it should not be up to personal choice due to the harm principle. Opel and Diekema (2012) are still on the offence about mandating vaccines because they believe that it disrespects parental autonomy and their ability to make a decision for their child. However, the vaccine is there to protect

Testing irreversibly robs children of the right to choose whether to get tested as adults, when they can better understand the implications of test results (Davis ____). Thus it constitutes a violation of a “right in trust,” (a right such as the right to reproduce or vote that the child cannot use yet, but must be protected so that the right may be exercised later) and removes the child’s ability to choose, as his or her parents did, to be tested later on in life for reproductive, marriage, or medical reasons.

In Australia there has been a significant debate arising around the topic of why should parents/guardians have to vaccinate their chid. It should be mandatory for all children and pregnant mothers to receive the necessary vaccinations to prevent harmful illnesses, avoid having Child Care Benefits withheld from the Governments ‘No Jab, No Pay’ scheme and increase the potential of such diseases to be eradicated.

Vaccinations should not be mandatory because there are numerous health benefits to not being vaccinated, there are benefits of being sick, and having the choice to be vaccinated should be a right.

The big issue is, does the government have the right to mandate immunization? We mandate that a child has to be in a car seat, that they can’t use alcohol, tobacco or drugs so should we mandate preventative protections. This is the ethical question, does the medical field, or the government have the “right” to force a parent to give their child immunizations for disease that can be prevented? This will be discussed for years and no matter what the decision is there will be people on both sides of the issue. Some will say that the government needs to “force” parents that will not take proper “care” of their child to immunize them or penalize them. Then the other side of the issue will say, we have rights and it is not the governments concern to force immunization. Whether you agree or disagree, the child is the major concern in the discussion. They have really no say in what happens, and they are forced to follow whatever their parents feel is the correct direction to follow, an infant cannot say “I want the immunization” or “I do not want the immunization” and the parent that feels that the immunization causes autism or some other type of disease or their religion is against immunization or other medical care have their rights and they are allowed to express what they believe is

An article by C. A. Vamos, R.J. McDermott, and E. M Daley, looks at the ethical issue of the mandatory vaccination and how it infringes on the parents’ autonomy in raising their children, and

In this country we have the ability to have the freedom of choice. We can choose what car we drive, what food we eat, what religion we worship. Mandatory vaccinations would take away from those freedoms. Parents have the ability to choose what they feel is best for their child.

But I would rather vaccinate my child than not and have him suffer from an illness that is perfectly avoidable. The only time I would be concerned would be if your family has a history of being allergic to eggs or any of the ingredients in a vaccine Even children vaccinated could still be susceptible to another strain of an illness which might seem like I am say8ing so why vaccinate but I look at is an ensuring your child won’t spread a disease that is supposed to be almost completely eradicated. “Individual rights” is so interesting to me because it seems situational for instance military members don’t really have a choice regarding booster shots and shots to go overseas, deployed, and whatever else is deemed necessary. Which begs me to question who deems what necessary. I hate sounding like a paranoid x-files nut but we have an interesting history when discussing the furthering of mankind and experimentation. such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, which was grossly unnecessary and targeted African Americans because why not (“Center for disease control”

Immunizations should be mandatory in the United States because it helps families save a lot of money. According to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “ Vaccines cost less in time and money to obtain than infectious diseases cost in time off of work to care for a child”( The Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Vaccines are beneficial to the community. Many families can take the opportuniy to save money by allowing their kids to get vaccines. By getting vaccines for their children, parents save a lot of their money because they are not obtaining more expensive and intense medication for their children due to their children’s worse condition. If they do not receive vaccines, children can become exposed to infectious diseases that will require more energy

Given the fact many parents already have children vaccinated, and the need for additional scientific evidence to the safety, vaccines should be compulsory. True, immunization may save a child life, evidence to prove not be vaccinated will have drastic

Even before reading “Newborn Screening is Important for Your Baby”, by Center for Disease Control and Prevention, I was certain I made the right choice by screening my babies in the hospital. Whether to vaccinate and screen one’s child is a highly debated topic in today’s society. I personally think screening is extremely important and to chose not to can be dangerous not only to your own child but the children that come in contact with them. The article explains why newborn screening is important, what the results of the screen show a parent, and what treatment can occur if something is found. From what I have gathered from the article, newborn screening cannot do any harm to a child; the screen is only looking for problems and conditions a child might have.

From deciding what to do with the baby in your body, to electing to follow certain religious beliefs, people have many rights as American citizens. Several cases have been ruled over when it comes to human rights, such as the Roe vs Wade case, which covers a woman 's rights to an abortion, and the Cantwell vs Connecticut case that covers a person 's religious right to free exercise. Now the country is torn again in a human rights issue. Should it be mandatory for parents to give their children all of the vaccines that are available for children by the government? There are two sides to this argument, that both stage excellent positions. On one side, there are the people who believe that it is not only a violation of rights to make them vaccinate their child, but it is also interfering with the overall health and well being of the child by injecting them with potentially harmful chemicals. Other people, however, believe that the population as a whole would be safer from disease if everyone were required to be vaccinated. In their belief, the vaccinations are incredibly safe and effective, and could save the lives of thousands of children. Both parents, those who believe in vaccinations and those who do not, want what is going to be best for their child. Both want to be informed and have the knowledge to be able to raise the healthiest child that they can.

Health screening according to Durojaiye, (2009) is a systematic application of a test or inquiry, to identify individuals at sufficient risk of a specific health problem to warrant further investigation of direct preventive action, among persons who have not sough t medical attention on account of symptoms of that problem. According to this definition the main aim of screening program is to detect disease or risk factor, among the general population, in order to implement earlier preventive or therapeutic intervention because the highest benefit one can derive from a specific treatment is when the disease is less advanced (Rosemary Pope,1992). Screening is different to diagnosis. screening is performed on people without symptoms, it does