“Should children have to be vaccinated to attend school?” (Lemons, 2016, p. 185). This statement is the prescriptive issue that Jane Fullerton Lemons, writer for the 2008 CQ Researcher posits in her report on “Vaccine Controversies.” In order to get both sides of the issue, Lemons obtained a testimony from Amy Pisani, Executive Director of Every Child By Two, and a rebuttal from Barbra L. Fisher, President of National Vaccine Information Center. Initially, my thought was to side with Fisher, but with further reading I 've concluded that Pisani had the stronger argument, despite the weaknesses given throughout. Given the polarizing issue of weather or not children need to be vaccinated to attend school, Pisani believes yes, it should be mandatory.
…show more content…
From her statements, Pisani gives reasons and evidence to reach her conclusion. First off, she says that outbreaks in diseases are jeopardizing public health, prompting state legislators to re-evaluate the wisdom of allowing non-medical exemptions” (Lemons, 2016, p. 185). She indicates that children who got out of the mandatory vaccinations were then thirty-five times more likely to get measles, and six times more likely to acquire pertussis; otherwise known as whooping cough. Also, states with much more loose exemption policies had approximately 50% more whooping cough cases than this of states with more strict policies. Pisani further supported her conclusion by stating that she has traveled to “…dozens of states and as far as Africa” (Lemons, 2016, p. 185), saying that families have lost their children, or have had their holders permanently disabled from …show more content…
Additionally, after my breakdown between the two arguments, it has left me to think that this concern among parents is very much justified. Initially, I sided with Fisher, but Panini’s argument won me over. This action was almost solely based the fact that Fisher had nearly no data nor statistics to back up her claim. Fishers argument almost seemed like only an opinion from someone associated with an anti-vaccine group. While yes, Pisani did have weaknesses in her argument, I ended up siding with her based on the fact that she gave more information, with less ambiguity. After throughly picking through both argument, I had one to realize that both Pisani and Fisher didn 't explicitly state their main value, which plays against the minute their own argument. It is clear to me that both Fisher and Pisani want the best for not only their children, but all children around the world. The difference between the two is that Fisher seems to only have an opinion with mass numbers of ambiguity. While Pisani also has ambiguity, she gives reasons supported with data and statistics. Given all of this, one thing I can get out of it was that both Pisani and Fisher have shed new information from both sides of the
From her statements, Pisani gives reasons and evidence to reach her conclusion. First off, she says that outbreaks in diseases are jeopardizing public health, prompting state legislators to re-evaluate the wisdom of allowing non-medical exemptions” (Lemons, 2016, p. 185). She indicates that children who got out of the mandatory vaccinations were then thirty-five times more likely to get measles, and six times more likely to acquire pertussis; otherwise known as whooping cough. Also, states with much more loose exemption policies had approximately 50% more whooping cough cases than this of states with more strict policies. Pisani further supported her conclusion by stating that she has traveled to “…dozens of states and as far as Africa” (Lemons, 2016, p. 185), saying that families have lost their children, or have had their holders permanently disabled from …show more content…
Additionally, after my breakdown between the two arguments, it has left me to think that this concern among parents is very much justified. Initially, I sided with Fisher, but Panini’s argument won me over. This action was almost solely based the fact that Fisher had nearly no data nor statistics to back up her claim. Fishers argument almost seemed like only an opinion from someone associated with an anti-vaccine group. While yes, Pisani did have weaknesses in her argument, I ended up siding with her based on the fact that she gave more information, with less ambiguity. After throughly picking through both argument, I had one to realize that both Pisani and Fisher didn 't explicitly state their main value, which plays against the minute their own argument. It is clear to me that both Fisher and Pisani want the best for not only their children, but all children around the world. The difference between the two is that Fisher seems to only have an opinion with mass numbers of ambiguity. While Pisani also has ambiguity, she gives reasons supported with data and statistics. Given all of this, one thing I can get out of it was that both Pisani and Fisher have shed new information from both sides of the