Childhood Vaccinations

Vaccinations are a common occurrence in many children’s lives that are typically followed by a heart-wrenching cry. With recent outbreaks of vaccine side-effects, many parents question the dangers associated with childhood vaccinations. This change in America’s medical and social culture has lead to a serious controversy affecting many. Surrounding this on-going controversy are many parents weighing the risks and benefits of vaccinating their children. Imposingly, many parents still fear the effects of preventable and deadly childhood diseases. For example, a study recently performed by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that America’s current population has seen the most measles cases since 1996, and the majority of these
cases were caused by unvaccinated children (Jackson 131). While parents weigh the risks of vaccinating versus vaccination exemption, the real question is posed. As a whole, should childhood vaccinations and their relation to grade-school mandates be required? Along with this basic idea, the question is also posed whether or not ‘the personal belief exemption’ should be removed in order to better the health of school populations. Overall, personal belief exemptions from mandated vaccines should be difficult to attain for the betterment of America’s youth, even if others might argue that the removal of personal belief exemptions violates ones personal freedoms. Firstly, Douglas J.
Opel, a professor in The Department of Bioethics and Humanities at The University of Washington, and Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at The University of Washington, address the moral and health related reasons that personal belief exemptions should exist without mandation. However, throughout this argument there are several logical falicies. The first found in their work is that personal belief exemptions are claimed by citizens without proof of philosophical belief. Along with this fact, Opel and Diekema also predicate that personal belief exemptions are taken out of convenience for the consumer (142). Although citizens uphold the right to freedom, it is selfish and morally wrong for parents to endanger others by not vaccinating their children. Not only is this decision immorraly incorrect without philosophical reasoning, but it is too frequently taken out of convenience. Although Opel and Diekema pose abstract ideas regarding personal belief exemptions, the concept that these exemptions are taken without question is frightening for America’s youth. Due to this fact, Opel and Diekema indirectly support that there must be more restrictions upon personal belief
exemptions. In accordance with Opel and Diekema’s views supporting personal belief exemptions, Shana Kluck, a mom and editor for United Liberty, argues that there have been recent side effects from pediatric vaccinations. Several issues include mercury contamination as well as live virus composition. Although Kluck makes a persuasive point in including this information, it is no longer valid. Even though vaccines contained these substances at a time in history, they do not contain either in modern medicine. This statement is supported by John D. Lantos, Mary Anne Jackson, Douglas J. Opel, et al., researchers for Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care. These researches proclaim that vaccines without these substances were produced as early as the 1950’s (40). Along with this fact, mandated vaccines for grade school children have been altered in order to best benefit the child. For example, the measles shot has been greatly improved upon since 1963. Prior to the measles vaccination produced in 1963, the measles virus caused approximately 5.7 million deaths per year throughout the world; by 1969 this death rate decreased 95% in schools where vaccinations were mandated (Lantos et al. 43). With all things considered, Kluck attempts to defend the right of exempting childhood vaccinations; however, her argument is proven invalid. Along with the conveiniece and misconception of personal belief exemptions is the idea that many parents are not aware of the consequences resulted from claiming personal belief exemptions without reason. Mary Anne Jackson, chief of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, John D. Lantos, director of Pediatric Bioethics, and Christopher J. Harrison, Pediatric Infectious Disease doctor from Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, strive to inform parents of these consequences using statistics. While most infectious diseases do not currently occur on a large scale, these diseases killed 57,000 Americans fifty years ago. During this time children commonly passed away without warning. Following these tragic times, mandated vaccines decreased the death rate from deadly diseases approximately ninety-nine percent, in adolescents (132). As stated, it is handy to exempt children from vaccines; however, statistics show that vaccinations reduce America’s mortality rates. Despite thee given facts, parents repeatedly claim that they are not informed. All in all, there is no reason parents should claim personal belief exemptions because they are ’uninformed’. Along with the frightening facts provided by Jackson, Lantos, and Harrison, it is also crucial to remember that unvaccinated children directly affect citizens who are vaccinated. Although vaccines are rapidly increasing in their success rate they rely on ‘herd immunity’. This term is explained best by Douglas J. Opel, a professor in The Department of Bioethics and Humanities at The University of Washington, who states that even if a citizen is immunized, they will be effected when more than 5% of citizens surrounding them are not immunized. For example, Opel explains that schools who experienced infectious diseases in 2002 had increasingly more children who were exempted from their vaccines out of convenience. In addition, approximately eleven percent of children who received a vaccine and contracted the disease were in contact with a child who was not vaccinated (142). Under those circumstances, the positive effects of vaccinations are not as prominent as they could be if more children were vaccinated. Therefore, personal belief exemptions should be reconsidered in order to decrease the risk of contracting a disease both for citizens throughout the country. In opposition to Opel’s views, Frances Childs, a teacher from Southern England, explains the life of a boy with parents who wish to not immunize him.
The effects this decision has on this child’s life is tremendous. Not only does this decision affect his life negatively in a social light, but it is also dangerous for the child’s health. In this particular story the parents believe that good health and nutrition will keep away the deadly measles disease. However, with further research, it is not wise to assume such things. For example, in March of 1922, at least eighty children died from the effects of the measles in one week. Henceforth, when deciding whether pediatric immunizations are necessary it is important to consider the facts instead of relying on a new nutritional diet. Although some parents might be concerned with the side effects related to mandated vaccines, the benefits definitely out-weigh the
risks. Alongside with the mentioned reasons, parents should consider that vaccinating their children would increase the public health as a whole. Shana Kluck and John D. Lantos collaboratively address the effects of unnecessary exemptions from immunizations and its effects on the population overall. Even though the majority of vaccine regulations apply for grade school students, a lack of vaccinated children affect the population as a whole. John D. Lantos addresses the topic of ‘herd immunity’ and its effects on all citizens. Even though the approximate death rate for children affected by infectious diseases is approximately sixty-three percent, it also affects the elderly population. In Lantos’ study, it is shown that adults over the age of sixty-five are consequently effected. Mortality rates within this age specification are increasing with approximately 35,000 deaths caused by infectious diseases each year (39). In addition to Lantos’ study, Kluck verifies that as a mother she believes that the amount of personal belief exemptions should be limited in order to better the health of today’s citizens. Given Lantos’ and Kluck’s statistics and credible opinions, it is evident that pediatric vaccination are essential to a healthier America. At the same time, Shana Kluck also possesses opinions that limiting personal belief exemptions would be a disgrace to one’s religious freedoms. Even though Kluck is correct in this opinion, there is an alternate solution to this growing issue. In contrast, Mary Anne Jackson proposes that the personal belief exemption program should enforce more uniform mandates. In order to make the system fair, Jackson proposes that personal belief exemptions stay in place, however, these exemptions must be accompanied by knowledge. Jackson suggests that in order to be exempt from vaccinations, parents must visit a practitioner to learn the risks associated with their decision. This action omits the convenience factor of vaccination exemptions while allowing citizens to possess their freedoms. Although Kluck’s opinion on the controversy of eliminating personal belief exemption is extreme, Jackson poses a wise opinion on how to improve the system in place while allowing for personal freedom. All in all, vaccine mandates regulate and protect Americans from deadly diseases and infections, but The United States is becoming less healthy because citizens are not being informed of the risks associated with their decision. Although there is much controversy over personal belief exemptions and the effects it has on religious freedoms, there is an alternate solution to the issue. Vaccine mandates and personal belief exemptions should remain in place. In addition to these grade school mandates parents must be informed of all risks associated with each vaccine and vaccine exemption by visiting a medical practitioner. This new practice would eliminate convenient personal belief exemptions while respecting American’s right to personal freedom.