Public Health: The Vaccine Debate

Individual Rights Vs. Public Health: The Vaccine Debate.

The purpose of the author’s essay was to provide context for a debate between two opposing advocates for, and against mandatory vaccination. The author completed the task of identifying and clarifying the primary arguments of the two opposing sides, whether mandatory vaccines are an infringement of personal rights or if they are a necessity for public health. The author uses this essay to provide each of the proponents’ stances for each of their main arguments and produce solid supporting evidence for why the opponents feel that their reasons are logical. The author was successful in producing valid arguments for each opposing side, and clearly identifying the author’s own stance as …show more content…
Although there were no counter claims against the context of the debate, there were several counter claims against the idea of mandatory vaccines which include: Immunizations cause harmful side effects, children who have been vaccinated have been linked to developing autism, parents do not trust the government to make personal decisions for their children, and the amount of research done regarding vaccines is insufficient. Other oppositions are opposed to mandatory vaccines due to their personal religious mandates, and others believe in the concept of herd immunity, the idea that because the other children of the community have been vaccinated, their kids would be protected without having to risk getting vaccinated or the side effects that accompany it. The final opposition was that some anti vaccination parents believed that they did not have to risk their children’s well-being for the sake of public …show more content…
The proponents against mandatory vaccines who believed that it was unreasonable to risk their children experiencing the side effects of vaccines for the sake of public health made opinionated claims, some of which the author believed to be feasible. Those opponents believed that allowing the government to be the decision makers in something that could potentially cause their children harm could eventually lead to them losing control over their children, and per the opposers, the government has no right to make decisions for their kids. The author did not disagree with this notion, even bringing notice to it while concluding the essay. The other concept that the originator did not address was the lack of research done regarding the correlation of vaccines to side effects or vaccine induced conditions. The originator, having provided several scientific based facts and sources earlier in the essay may have not felt the need to address this dissident point of view. Another reason for the lack of attention to the preceding concept is that the author, already expressing that the pros outweigh the cons, did not see it imperative to reiterate this