Evaluating The Ethical Principles Of An Axis And Identifying Concrete Points At Which Certain Values Outweigh Others?

To begin I wanted to research articles that explored the question. In “Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States” Kristin S. Hendrix discusses the flaws childhood vaccination policies have on ethical principles. Hendrix begins by addressing the resurgence of disease due to lack of immunization, and attributes it to differing vaccine attitudes and behaviors, and their influence on child immunization decisions. Hendrix argues that, “…vaccine-hesitant attitudes… may be driven by religious reasons, skepticism about science, or the influence of personalities she trusts on other matters” (Hendrix 273). She also acknowledges

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.

Parents face many different decisions when raising a child; some decisions are trivial, and others can be controversial. Whether or not to vaccinate a child is one of the most controversial choices. So controversial, in fact, that there is a political conversation of making immunizations a requirement. Many people support the movement of making vaccinations mandatory. Proponents argue that vaccines save lives, vaccine-preventable diseases have not been eradicated, and vaccines protect herd immunity. Many people also disagree with the possibility of required vaccinations. Opponents argue that vaccines cause harm, immunity by vaccinations is inferior to natural immunity, and government policies should not dictate personal medical choices.

Thesis: 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.

Is requiring vaccinations overstepping the bounds of our right to make our own medical choices for ourselves as well as for our children? Or, is it safe and necessary for the “greater good” to prevent deadly diseases? Are those who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children putting the rest of the population at risk? Where should the line, if any, be drawn? Why are more and more people using exemptions to vaccinations? How safe and effective are vaccinations? I will share important information on both sides of the issue to help you decide the answers to these questions.

Imagine to the toll it would take on a family who can’t make the decision on whether or not they should immunize their children. One case involving a woman named Lori Matheson of Walled Lake, refused to vaccine her two-year-old daughter, citing health concerns and religious objections. Michael Schmitt, Matheson’s Ex-husband, took her to court over the matter. She asked the court to delay any ruling until she had the chance to follow through with genetic testing on the little girl, to see if she was prone to any vaccine related injuries. Matheson and Schmitt had disputed for months over the issue, before finalizing on the decision to take the issue to court. A 40-year-old Kansas resident and his wife fell into a terrible ongoing conflict when he wanted to vaccine their three-year-old daughter, and she did not. He debated going behind her back and getting their daughter vaccined, and dealing with the consequences later. Shortly after they had to put matters into official’s hands. There are many cases involving parents who follow through with a

While supporting the voluntary immunization for children and defending the right to have information regarding the risk involved with vaccines, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) oppose the elimination of or possible barriers of entry to obtain Non-Medical Exemptions. In an effort to reduce vaccine related injuries and/or death and support those who do not want to receive vaccines due to personal, spiritual, or religious beliefs, the NVIC supports the right to Non-Medical Exemptions. The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze the safety, efficacy, and economic burden of vaccines, as well as the right to choice in regards to Non-Medical Exemptions.

Recently an anti-vaccination movement has sparked a worldwide discussion about both the safety of vaccines and the responsibility of people to vaccinate. Recent outbreaks of preventable diseases have caused both fear and anger from people on both sides of the issue. These same outbreaks have also served to cause significant political tension between those against vaccines, who do not want their right to choose compromised, and many proponents of vaccines, who are calling for mandatory vaccinations.

An ethical consideration that is important to recognize is respect for persons. This means to respect others’ beliefs. If the individual cannot be vaccinated due to religion, then he or she has the right to opt out from the procedure with valid confirmation. This relates to the policy because one of the exemptions is religion. Also, if the person refuses to be vaccinated, then law enforcement cannot use physical violence to force the individual to be vaccinated.

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

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.

It is very important for healthcare providers to be educated on the safety concern of vaccination. Proper protocols must be taken through evidence-based research on the issue of vaccination and the risk factors that can allow stakeholders better implementation on laws that can be beneficial to parents. The stakeholder’s in the healthcare field such as patients, healthcare providers, insurance companies, organizations, and those who enforce policy main concern are the safety of these patients. The decisions most of these stakeholders make can either benefit patients or affect them. For example, the consequences parents have if their child is not vaccinated. The mandatory law of children who are not vaccinated cannot enrolled in school is unfair to parents. I believe parents should not be penalized or forced for their child to be vaccinated. If all stakeholders can reunite through evidence based research on the topic of vaccinations risk concern it can cause a positive impact on parents and alternative ways children can prevent the side

“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.

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