Perelman And Olbrechts: A Pragmatic Argument Analysis

Mandatory vaccination is an extremely controversial topic because it violates constitutionally protected right to practice religion and personal beliefs in the absence of the true health emergency (First Amendment of the Constitution). The new law destroys the individual rights of parents to make voluntary decisions in the best interest of their children in the health care decisions and diminishes the role of parents in upbringing and educating their children (Skov).

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.

Vaccination is a complex topic that has proven to be so contentious that most people have decided that they either support vaccination or oppose it, with neither side willing to even entertain the idea of meeting in the middle or finding common ground. On one side, those who oppose vaccinations do so for a variety of reasons, but most of all they do so because they think vaccines are dangerous or ineffective. Many of the opposed defend their anti-vaccination position by citing studies linking vaccines to autism and other debilitating side effects, or by voicing concerns over vaccines containing unsafe ingredients that may harm vaccinated children. Also questioned is the effectiveness of vaccines, if they are even needed, or even why vaccinating matters if those who are vaccinated are so confident that vaccinations work. On the other side of the fence, the people who support vaccinations believe that, due to the benefits of vaccines far outweighing any associated risks,

Adams says that the vaccine “is absolutely worthless” (445), but doesn’t give supporting evidence for that statement. Allen is even-handed in his approach, citing studies that show the drug seems to be effective, although he expresses doubt about the rush to put it into use. Adams says that it is an “illusion” (447) that the drug is safe, though he doesn’t give examples of it having harmed anyone. Allen only states that there is “no guarantee it won’t provoke a rare side effect” (450). Adams said this mandate was the result of drug companies bribing and influencing the DEA, politicians, and the medical school (447). Allen simply states that the government and parents need to be won over by the drug companies before the mandate is put into effect (450).

Throughout the article, Hendrix evaluates the possible arguments of parents who turn down opportunities to vaccinate their children and later discusses methods to evoke better communication. For example, Hendrix states, “Some parents do invoke the herd immunity argument as a reason not to vaccinate, suggesting that it is unnecessary that they expose their child to the risk of side effects from vaccination if everyone else is vaccinated to a level that prevents the spread of illnesses” (2). While her stance calls for policymakers and health officials to consider the reasoning behind parental opposition to vaccinations, she also refutes

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

The current issue I have selected to discuss is vaccinations. In particular, I will be addressing the anti-vaccination movement that has gained popularity in recent years and the contributing biases that influenced its emergence. One event stands out at as a major contributing factor to the growth of the anti-vaccination movement, the 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield that was published by the English medical journal, Lancet. This study claimed to show a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Even though it was just one small study, the media picked it up and it became hugely publicized.

While this paper will mainly focus on the pros of vaccinations, they are some cons or arguments against children being immunized against vaccine preventable diseases. One of the arguments

Although both writers agree on the dismissal of the mandated HPV vaccines each provides their own logic behind their beliefs. Using a different approach, Allen’s tone and diction in his piece differs of that of Adam’s article. Allen begins with an unbiased opinion on the case and opens his article with a previous case regarding mandated vaccinations, the Hepatitis B vaccine. The case is very similar to that of the HPV Vaccine and Allen uses this as a starting point to build up his reason in his work. Unlike Adams, Allen does not in any way relay to the reader his bias on the government in terms of the vaccines; he remains neutral and refrains from using loaded dialogue to attempt to inform the reader of his point. “It stands to reason that, without a mandatory vaccination, many of the girls who don’t get vaccinated will belong to the same groups that fall through the cracks of the patchy U.S

The intended purpose of this presentation is to provide facts and scientific research that persuades the audience members regarding the use of vaccinations. My intention is that the audience will support the use of vaccinations and consider the facts before making decisions that affect the entire community. My central idea is that inaccurate data exists with regards to vaccination; instead, that vaccinations should be viewed as essential for protection of society, both from extreme illness as well as life threatening, and sometimes fatal, diseases.

“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.

Throughout history, it has been shown that vaccines make a significant impact on the health of our communities and “administration of these vaccines led to dramatic reduction in the number of cases of, as well as deaths from smallpox, polio, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps and preventable diseases” (Jacobson, 2012, p.36). Generally, those involved in campaigns for and research in these preventable diseases attribute vaccines for children as the main contributing factor to the overall decline in diseases such as measles, mumps, smallpox and pertussis (Jacobson, 2012). In the public health setting, there are many issues that threaten the health and safety of the public, not just in the local community but the nation and world-wide. One such issue, surfacing in public health, is the issue of vaccinations; those who choose to vaccinate, those who choose not to vaccinate and those who do not

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.

During the 20th century, the infectious disease death rate decreased from 800/1000 deaths to less than 100/1000 deaths. This is mainly due to the introduction of immunisation. Vaccination has clearly prevented millions of deaths over the last century; nevertheless, the anti-vaccination movement has grown significantly in recent years. Some of the reasons why people join this movement include the belief that vaccines don’t actually work, the belief that vaccines are unnatural and therefore unhealthy and the belief that vaccines contain toxins that cause bodily damage and neuropsychiatric problems (eg. Autism). This essay will discredit the beliefs associated with the anti vaccination movement through infectious disease statistics,