John Stuart Mill's Argumentative Analysis

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.

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.

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

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.

“Immunizing Against Bad Science: The Vaccine Court and the Autism Test Case,” written by Lauren L. Haertlein, deals with one of today’s most popular controversies; vaccinations causing autism in children. Haertlein’s article gives insight into the history of vaccine litigation and the policies that accompany it. Furthermore, she talks immensely about the Vaccine Court, whose job is to work with petitioner’s stating that a vaccine, such as measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), has caused some illness to their child. The article uses

When Dr. Jenner introduced the smallpox vaccine he was met with as much condemnation as he was with praise, “ministers thundered against tampering with the Lord’s grand design. The economist Thomas Malthus worried that vaccines would lead to dangerous population increases” (Oshinsky). After all the years, the arguments against Dr. Jenner’s work have become obsolete yet the crusade against vaccines still wages on wielding new arguments. The recent revival of the anti-vaccination movement came about during 1990s, “the movement…had less to do with fears of personal liberties being deprived than with claims of a link between vaccines and various afflictions, especially autism. It hardly mattered that study after study would refute this junk science” (Oshinsky). This controversy holds elements of morality, politics and ethical issues, but is not limited to those arguments. Elements of the destruction of personal liberties

There is no doubt that vaccination has been one of the greatest successes of public health programs in the 20th century. Vaccinations have eradicated naturally occurring smallpox, and have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases that previously ravaged the population, such as polio and measles. Despite the successes, there has been a history of “anti-vaccinationists” in the U.S., who among other challenges, argued compulsory vaccination was an infringement upon personal liberty and their right to choice (1, 2). In fact, it took a Supreme Court decision to ultimately assert whether a state mandating vaccination infringed upon the U.S. Constitution.

In the past few years there has renewed interest in the whether all states should mandate mandatory childhood vaccinations for all children, except for those who qualify for a medical exemption. It brings forth the major issue of autonomy; of the parents right to choose versus the government right to protect its citizens. In recent years there have been reports about the rise in the number of new cases of vaccine preventable diseases e.g. Measles, Mumps, Pertussis, Pneumococcus. The major factor regarding parents refusing to have their children vaccinated is the belief or notation that vaccines cause autism and are harmful to children (Daum, 2014) (GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators, 2014)

"In the United States, the childhood immunization schedule recommends that children receive approximately 15 vaccinations by 19 months of age, and it specifies ages for administration of each vaccination dose" (Luman, Barker, McCauley, & Drews-Botsch, 2005, p. 1367). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is "a product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease" (Vaccines and Immunizations, 2015). Currently, there are many individuals advocating for and opposing the effects of the administration of vaccinations and immunizations in the United States. There are both legal and ethical issues surrounding the controversy, which include both deliberate and exogenous reasons not to vaccinate, and the mandatory nature that is required by many schooling districts and places of employment. Within this paper, I will discuss some legal implications surrounding vaccination, ethical debates that are current in the topic, as well as my point of view regarding immunizations and vaccinations.

The term “herd immunity” became a common phrase as the debate surrounding mandating vaccines continues to grow. The modern vaccination debate often appears to focus on the effectiveness of vaccines as many media sources affirmed or denounced a potential correlation between autism and vaccines. Although these stories about autism and vaccines became headlines, the history of mandating vaccines addresses the authority of the government to distinguish between individual concerns and the common good. The current now ultimately focuses on examining the authority of the government to distinguish between individual concerns and the common good rather than the effectiveness of vaccines.

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

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

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

John Stuart Mill discusses the conception of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus of his ideas of the harm principle and a touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom on action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts about the conception on liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts on the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained. My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective.

“Absolute liberty is the absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible to himself” - Henry Brooks Adams. There has been great debate, past and present with regards to what constitutes as an individuals liberty. It has been subject to constant ridicule and examination due to violations of civil rights. Freedom, liberty, and independence are all important human rights represented within John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.