Arguments About Parental Choice And Vaccination

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.

Mandatory vaccinations have been hotly debated in the United States for over two centuries, making the argument almost as old as the country itself. As early as 1809, Massachusetts became the first state to mandate the world’s premiere vaccine. Authorities recognized the life-saving benefits of the smallpox vaccine. They chose to require inoculation to protect the community from further outbreaks. Public outrage ensued as some community members feared the new vaccine and believed they should be able to choose if they wished to receive it. The most vocal protestors formed anti-compulsory vaccination groups and were successful in getting laws overturned in many states. However, even the United States Supreme Court has upheld states’ rights to require immunization. (A) Vaccinations should be

​Over the past decade, the concern among parents regarding the safety and effectiveness of childhood vaccinations has become a concern in the United States and other countries around the world. A survey of physicians showed that 89% of the physicians who were surveyed reported at least one refusal of childhood vaccinations by parents each month (Gowda & Dempsey, 2013). Other researchers have noted that as many as 77% of parents have concerned about one or more of the childhood vaccinations that are recommended for children (McKee & Bohannon, 2016). However, organizations such as the World Health Organization (2017) note that not only are childhood vaccinations safe, the reduction in children receiving childhood vaccinations has brought back diseases such as measles that had been completely wiped out in the United States. It is clear that there are opposing viewpoints about childhood vaccinations that need to be understood and examined to determine which side has a better argument.

This explains the theory of why parents choose the non-vaccinated route for their children’s lives and explains it why it’s a social issue and not just a personal choice.

The most commonly cited reason why parents decide to not vaccinate their children is due to their belief that vaccines cause harm11. In a survey that looked at risk perception with vaccines, researches found that while 94% of individuals surveyed had vaccinated or plan on vaccinating their children, only 23% of participants had no concerns about the vaccines16. This reiterates the point that even though there are high rates of vaccination in the United States,

There appears to be an alarmingly large group of people that don’t mind exposing their children to serious harm; in recent years, many adults have decided against vaccinating their children. This is unusual, as vaccines are non-lethal, very safe protection for children; they are even cost-effective for their parents and are considerably safer for the entire family when these children are vaccinated routinely (Prosser, 1548). Jennifer Hamborsky of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention essentially describes vaccination as the administration of antigenic material to stimulate an individual 's immune system to develop adaptive immunity to a pathogen- and vaccination

This paper was written for MLS 500: Graduate Research and Writing taught by Dr. Kyla Hammond

Due to the attention the anti-vaccination movement has received, many researchers have attempted to determine who is participating in the anti-vaccination movement. I am not the first to call for distinctions in children who were not fully-up-to-date (FUTD) on vaccines from those who are. Previous research on vaccination status has considered the children of “non vaccinators” as two distinct groups: undervaccinated and unvaccinated. Unlike selectively-vaccinated children, who intentionally were spared a particular vaccine, in much of this research undervaccinated children are identified as those who have inconsistent access to medical care (Reich 2014). Undervaccinated children are more likely to share particular demographic characteristics such as being below the poverty line, having a mother who is younger, unmarried, and has not attended college (Reich 2014; Smith 2004). This group is perceived to be unable, in most circumstances, to obtain the recommended vaccinations due to a wide variety of external factors. Undervaccinated children, in this sense, have been of particular interest to public health officials as they have attempted to implement programs to remove the cost of vaccines to increase availability (Smith et al. 2008). Undervaccination, like discussed earlier, has been reduced with the enactment of the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program by the United States government (Whitney et al. 2014).

Most, if not all of us, possess a pink trifold card documenting when our last HEP-B series or MMR vaccinations were administered. These vaccinations help prevent contracting deadly viruses and diseases. However, less and less people these days are toting these pink cards. Every year more families are jumping onto the anti-vaccination bandwagon. They argue that the vaccinations are not effective or that they are linked to other problems such as Autism. Although there is no scientific research that proves this, families still choose to skip out on routine vaccinations, harming the wellbeing of their children and the rest of the world around them. Vaccinations should be mandatory for every member in the United States, unless they

“Opting out of vaccinations puts public health at risk and could lead to a resurgence of dangerous diseases” (USA Today 1). If parents decide to not vaccinate their children it may pose a risk to the public as well as their child. It is still debated that a parent should or should not have the right to decide whether their child is vaccinated. Parents should not have the decision to vaccinate their child or not because by not being vaccinated death is likely, the disease is easily transmitted to a child who is not of age to be vaccinated, and it is necessary to keep the public healthy.

Many parents stress over the choice of deciding whether or not to vaccinate their children. The reason why deciding to vaccinate children is so difficult is due to the wide range of myths and side effects that are connected with vaccinations. Myths spread to parents all over the United States that the diseases don’t even exist anymore, rumors of vaccinations weakening a child’s immune system, and the risk of a child becoming autistic due to thimerisol in vaccinations. Side effects also scare parents out of getting their children vaccinated like brain damage, seizures, or allergic reactions, but then parents are pulled back to the thought of the possibility of

Vaccines have always been a controversial topic, to whether they are required all the way down to what they are composed of. It has been an ongoing battle since the 1970s and continues to make headlines even in this year of 2015 with the measles outbreak from Disneyland. Even now, many still believe that vaccinations can cause autism and choose not to vaccinate their children for that reason or another. Vaccinations are critical and need to be required for children before entering public schools.

One could say a total nightmare for one’s new born child would be having the baby infected with a harmful disease. Today, children and adults of different races and generations are becoming victims of communicable diseases. Fortunately, an English doctor named Edward Jenner developed the first ever vaccine in 1796 that could stop the infection of a disease. A vaccine is a biological product that is made from insignificant extents of dead or weak microorganisms that can cause a disease, which helps humans or other animals develop immunities that protect them from one or more diseases (“Vaccines”). Countless children across the globe are given these vaccinations to stay clear and safe of any infectious virus. However, there are people who are concerned and question the safety of vaccinations. Due to some people being against

To get vaccinated or to not get vaccinated is a very important issue that is now back on the rise. The target group for this paper would be young mothers and college aged adults. The purpose of this paper is to describe and demonstrate how the Health Belief model can be used to teach a person the importance of vaccinating themselves and their children. As a new, young parent many people do not know the benefits of vaccines and they don’t understand the harm they put themselves and their child in if they remain unvaccinated.

Frequent vaccination has protected the unimmunized population throw the herd immunity resulting in lower childhood death rate and morbidity in the global population. However, parental trust in the safety and efficacy of the immunization programmes has been eroded by the various contradictory reports that emphasise the side effects of immunization and are ongoing barriers in accessing immunization hugely affect vaccination accomplishments. Vaccination is evidently identified as a greatest means of controlling infectious disease and it will continue to be the essential tool in controlling infection. Clearly, there is no doubt that immunization has hugely reduced the incidence and mortality of infection diseases in global context and should be continued and expanded until this disease have been eliminated completely. Therefore, future research must evaluate the claims against vaccination as quickly as possible to allay doubt spreading and policy makers should create new vaccination schedules which present evidence based statements regarding the safety and importance of