Essay on Does The Limits Of Autonomy Are Unsafe For Human Usage?

1505 Words Oct 23rd, 2016 7 Pages
For many first world nations, vaccination has benefitted their respective areas by drastically lowering the rates of disease, death, and infant mortality rates; thus, it’s an alarming finding that up to nine percent of American citizens believe vaccines are unsafe for human usage (Dost). Within this paper, it is my goal to explore the limits of autonomy in regards to parents and children, the ways in which this particular viewpoint can affect more than just the local community, the applications of a compounding moral good, and finally, put forth the argument that we are morally obligated to vaccinate both adults and children. The first contention for this paper will evoke Mills’ Harm Principle, which states that any action may be limited to prevent harm to other individuals (Ogunkoya). When we refuse to vaccinate, we put more than just ourselves at risk—our community is endangered as well, most especially the members that rely on the rest of their community to be vaccinated in order to grant them herd immunity. Thus, I will purport that under Mill, vaccinating individuals without their consent is a justifiable violation of autonomy, as the harm it could otherwise do to a community is quite astronomical in size. In relation to this contention, we may also consider the role of consequentialism within the scope of the debate. Consequentialism is a moral theory that proposes that the consequences of an action determine whether it is morally good or not (Suikkanen).…

Related Documents