Vaccination Mandatory For All Children: Case Study
Kriti Singhvi
WR100 A3
May 23, 2014
Room for Debate Over the years, sustainable achievements have been made in controlling many diseases through vaccination. Yet, there remains the question whether vaccination should be made compulsory or not. On March 23, 2014, in the Room for Debate column of New York Times, five qualified people way in their opinion on the topic “Making Vaccination Mandatory for All Children”. Kristen A. Feemster, a physician and health services researcher, feels that vaccines must be compulsory for all children. She believes that vaccines not only protect individuals but also their neighbor. Feemster says that “Vaccines protect our neighbors --like following traffic laws, drug tests at work, paying taxes”1and …show more content…
therefore like any other law, the law of mandatory vaccine is a shared responsibility. If vaccines aren’t required by all, a community might end up having a few immunized people which means all the community members are at risk. She continues saying that the number of people who do not get vaccinated because of their duty to their religion should be reduced because people who cannot receive vaccines for some reason, depend on their neighbors and community for protection against diseases. Feemster adds that the scientific and public health community should make sure that their involvement is safe and effective, and they should also try to reduce the "vaccine confidence gap" i.e. increase the percent of people who trust in vaccination. Conversely, Jennifer Margulis, a coworker at Schuster Institute at Brandeis University, argues that the officials should encourage and not force parents to vaccinate their children especially in a country that follows the notion of freedom of choice. According to Margulis, an American parent can make their own decisions (unlike the U.A.E. parents) and they have the right to choose to follow the C.D.C. 's vaccination schedule or any other schedule. Margulis uses the Norway vaccination schedule compared to the C.D.C. 's vaccination schedule as Norway is one of the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates. She says that an American mom who breastfeeds her child and follows the Norwegian schedule can be an evidence that vaccinations shouldn’t be compulsory. She says that parents know what is best for their child and their religious reasons for getting exempted from vaccines does not make them uneducated or misinformed. Joycelyn Elders, a surgeon general of the United States, reasons that people should be exempted from vaccination only because of their religious belief and not for other reasons. She believes that not getting a child vaccinated for non-religious reason is equal to child abuse and that those children should not be sent to school to hurt others. At the same time, Community pediatrician and Immunization expert, David Ellimana and a senior lecturer in children 's health, Helen Bedford talk about why compulsory vaccination wouldn’t work and that people in Britain get vaccinated voluntarily. They say that we live in a period where people do not like to do things just because the government asks them to; therefore, making vaccines compulsory would only result in worsening the situation as people against vaccines would not follow the law be what the consequences are. Out of the five people, only Feemster feels the urge to mandate vaccination. The rest are against mandating vaccination.
Word Count: 552
The Debate on Mandating Vaccines Vaccinating is like giving immunity to a person before the disease has a chance of making people sick. With the increase in the use of vaccines, many diseases decreased drastically. Five scholars Kristen A. Feemster, Jennifer Margulis, Joycelyn Elders, David Ellimana, and Helen Bedford raise their voice on mandating vaccination for children in the ‘Room for Debate’ column on NYT. They all provide different reasons for their claim. Feermster makes a good point about vaccinations being our shared responsibility with the community like any other law.
However, there are many law-breakers regardless of the consequences. In this case, people with strong religious beliefs will object to mandating vaccines despite the penalty they will have to fill. Feermster fails to speak on spreading awareness on the importance of vaccinations in order to get the people overcome their beliefs against vaccination. Furthermore, Feermster talks about the scientific and public health community’s duty to ensure safety and efficiency in order to gain people’s trust in vaccination. She states that the current vaccination schedule is both safe and effective; yet, one can question that the main reason parents object to compulsory vaccination is because of their doubts about the safety of their child, so how exactly is this a solution. What Feermster neglects is that the scientific and public health community should not only ensure but also prove the schedules safety and …show more content…
reliability. Next, Margulis explains her claim very well that the officials must encourage and not force routinely vaccines; however, her way of expressing is more informal. For instance, Margulis says “Unlike in the United Arab Emirates, in America we believe parents are capable of making their own decisions about their children 's health. We believe in freedom of choice.”2 Her statement can be offending to the U.A.E parents, it is not that they cannot make decisions’ regarding their child or that they don’t believe in freedom of choice, it is just that they have no objections against the law and for this reason everyone there is following the law. Elders makes a weak claim that religious beliefs are the only reason for an excuse for vaccination. Her argument seems unreasonable as she fails to explain why people should be exempted from vaccinations only because of religious beliefs. Elders also makes some strong statements like “Not getting a child immunized is child abuse.” and “If you feel that strongly that immunization is not a good idea, then don 't send you kids to school. Don 't make
Other children, or your child, suffer.”1 She need to explain how vaccinating is child abuse as not every reader will understand the relation between the two things. In addition, one can ask that there are many reasons why children in school suffer because of one child, so does this mean that that child should also stop attending school? Elders reasoning seems to be baseless. Lastly, Ellimana and Bedford make a good argument about why mandating vaccines wouldn’t work and also in demonstrating how the vaccination system works in Britain. Firstly, Britain and America are two different countries with different environment and different people. It is not necessary that the rules that apply in Britain will apply in America. Secondly, Ellimana and Bedford contradict themselves in a way. They say that parents want their child to get immunized. Doesn’t this mean that they will not rebel against vaccination being mandatory?
In a nutshell, all the five scholars have good reasons for their arguments; but, it is easy to find loop holes in there saying. If they are able to fill those loop holes, their debate would prove to be useful to increase the protection against diseases available to the public and also help build a clean surrounding
Word Count: 638
Letter to the Editor
May 23, 2014
New York Times
To the Editor,
RE: Making Vaccinations Mandatory for All Children, March 23, 2014 Vaccines are one of the greatest achievements in biomedical and public health. They have been able to decrease morbidity to a great extent. For instance, diseases like smallpox, diphtheria, and measles have declined by almost 100% in US and other diseases like pertussis, tetanus, and rubella have declined by more than 90% by 19983. Further, 322,089 thousand illness, 21,055 thousand hospitalization, and 731.7 thousand deaths have been prevented through regular vaccines to children from 1994 to 20134. Vaccination is all about our safety and the safety of the people we surround. In the debate for mandatory vaccination for children I believe it is the duty of the government to ensure public safety and for this reason vaccines should be made compulsory. Parents might disagree with this law because they are not sure about the safety of vaccination schedule; however, the government can ensure them by proving the effectiveness of vaccination schedule. Make vaccines compulsory for all children is the right thing to do.
As the saying goes “Prevention is better than Cure”. This is what vaccines are all about. Vaccines help prevent a disease by making one’s body immune to it. I also agree with Kristen A. Feemster that mandatory vaccine is a shared responsibility. By getting our child immunized, we not only protect our child but also everyone surrounding him/her. To add to her words, by making vaccinations compulsory for every child, the officials will be able to create a more safe and healthy environment where a very few people get infected. Parents should understand that this law has been made to protect their children. If any of their community member gets infected their child will remain immune to that disease because of the vaccination. Furthermore, they will be less likely to fall sick at times of an outbreak. As I mentioned earlier, it is always better to take precautions rather than spend money to get
cured. Feermster also points out a really important point of the “vaccination confidence gap”. She states that in order to gain trust of the people, the scientific and public health community should make sure that their involvement and schedule is safe and effective. Also, Feermster confirms that the present vaccination schedule is both safe and effective. I however believe that the scientific and public health community should not only ensure but also get the public to believe in the safety and efficiency of the vaccination schedule they follow. This is necessary because majority of the public is concerned whether the vaccination schedule will be safe for their children in the short and long run. They should let the public know if their schedule is revised several times and that there is no safer option other than that schedule. Mandating vaccinations for children is the best way to prevent diseases and create a healthy environment. This law is for the best for everyone as an individual and as a community member.
Kriti Singhvi,
Student
Boston University
Word Count: 557
Work Cited
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "Ten great public health achievements--United States, 1900-1999." MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 48, no. 12 (1999): 241, accessed May 23, 2014, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm
"The Opinion Pages Room for Debate: Making Vaccination Mandatory for All Children." The New York Times, accessed May 23, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/23/making-vaccination-mandatory-for-all-children
Whitney, Cynthia G., MD, et al. “Benefits from Immunization During the Vaccines for Children Program Era — United States, 1994–2013.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, accessed May 23, 2014.
WR100 A3
May 23, 2014
Room for Debate Over the years, sustainable achievements have been made in controlling many diseases through vaccination. Yet, there remains the question whether vaccination should be made compulsory or not. On March 23, 2014, in the Room for Debate column of New York Times, five qualified people way in their opinion on the topic “Making Vaccination Mandatory for All Children”. Kristen A. Feemster, a physician and health services researcher, feels that vaccines must be compulsory for all children. She believes that vaccines not only protect individuals but also their neighbor. Feemster says that “Vaccines protect our neighbors --like following traffic laws, drug tests at work, paying taxes”1and …show more content…
therefore like any other law, the law of mandatory vaccine is a shared responsibility. If vaccines aren’t required by all, a community might end up having a few immunized people which means all the community members are at risk. She continues saying that the number of people who do not get vaccinated because of their duty to their religion should be reduced because people who cannot receive vaccines for some reason, depend on their neighbors and community for protection against diseases. Feemster adds that the scientific and public health community should make sure that their involvement is safe and effective, and they should also try to reduce the "vaccine confidence gap" i.e. increase the percent of people who trust in vaccination. Conversely, Jennifer Margulis, a coworker at Schuster Institute at Brandeis University, argues that the officials should encourage and not force parents to vaccinate their children especially in a country that follows the notion of freedom of choice. According to Margulis, an American parent can make their own decisions (unlike the U.A.E. parents) and they have the right to choose to follow the C.D.C. 's vaccination schedule or any other schedule. Margulis uses the Norway vaccination schedule compared to the C.D.C. 's vaccination schedule as Norway is one of the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates. She says that an American mom who breastfeeds her child and follows the Norwegian schedule can be an evidence that vaccinations shouldn’t be compulsory. She says that parents know what is best for their child and their religious reasons for getting exempted from vaccines does not make them uneducated or misinformed. Joycelyn Elders, a surgeon general of the United States, reasons that people should be exempted from vaccination only because of their religious belief and not for other reasons. She believes that not getting a child vaccinated for non-religious reason is equal to child abuse and that those children should not be sent to school to hurt others. At the same time, Community pediatrician and Immunization expert, David Ellimana and a senior lecturer in children 's health, Helen Bedford talk about why compulsory vaccination wouldn’t work and that people in Britain get vaccinated voluntarily. They say that we live in a period where people do not like to do things just because the government asks them to; therefore, making vaccines compulsory would only result in worsening the situation as people against vaccines would not follow the law be what the consequences are. Out of the five people, only Feemster feels the urge to mandate vaccination. The rest are against mandating vaccination.
Word Count: 552
The Debate on Mandating Vaccines Vaccinating is like giving immunity to a person before the disease has a chance of making people sick. With the increase in the use of vaccines, many diseases decreased drastically. Five scholars Kristen A. Feemster, Jennifer Margulis, Joycelyn Elders, David Ellimana, and Helen Bedford raise their voice on mandating vaccination for children in the ‘Room for Debate’ column on NYT. They all provide different reasons for their claim. Feermster makes a good point about vaccinations being our shared responsibility with the community like any other law.
However, there are many law-breakers regardless of the consequences. In this case, people with strong religious beliefs will object to mandating vaccines despite the penalty they will have to fill. Feermster fails to speak on spreading awareness on the importance of vaccinations in order to get the people overcome their beliefs against vaccination. Furthermore, Feermster talks about the scientific and public health community’s duty to ensure safety and efficiency in order to gain people’s trust in vaccination. She states that the current vaccination schedule is both safe and effective; yet, one can question that the main reason parents object to compulsory vaccination is because of their doubts about the safety of their child, so how exactly is this a solution. What Feermster neglects is that the scientific and public health community should not only ensure but also prove the schedules safety and …show more content…
reliability. Next, Margulis explains her claim very well that the officials must encourage and not force routinely vaccines; however, her way of expressing is more informal. For instance, Margulis says “Unlike in the United Arab Emirates, in America we believe parents are capable of making their own decisions about their children 's health. We believe in freedom of choice.”2 Her statement can be offending to the U.A.E parents, it is not that they cannot make decisions’ regarding their child or that they don’t believe in freedom of choice, it is just that they have no objections against the law and for this reason everyone there is following the law. Elders makes a weak claim that religious beliefs are the only reason for an excuse for vaccination. Her argument seems unreasonable as she fails to explain why people should be exempted from vaccinations only because of religious beliefs. Elders also makes some strong statements like “Not getting a child immunized is child abuse.” and “If you feel that strongly that immunization is not a good idea, then don 't send you kids to school. Don 't make
Other children, or your child, suffer.”1 She need to explain how vaccinating is child abuse as not every reader will understand the relation between the two things. In addition, one can ask that there are many reasons why children in school suffer because of one child, so does this mean that that child should also stop attending school? Elders reasoning seems to be baseless. Lastly, Ellimana and Bedford make a good argument about why mandating vaccines wouldn’t work and also in demonstrating how the vaccination system works in Britain. Firstly, Britain and America are two different countries with different environment and different people. It is not necessary that the rules that apply in Britain will apply in America. Secondly, Ellimana and Bedford contradict themselves in a way. They say that parents want their child to get immunized. Doesn’t this mean that they will not rebel against vaccination being mandatory?
In a nutshell, all the five scholars have good reasons for their arguments; but, it is easy to find loop holes in there saying. If they are able to fill those loop holes, their debate would prove to be useful to increase the protection against diseases available to the public and also help build a clean surrounding
Word Count: 638
Letter to the Editor
May 23, 2014
New York Times
To the Editor,
RE: Making Vaccinations Mandatory for All Children, March 23, 2014 Vaccines are one of the greatest achievements in biomedical and public health. They have been able to decrease morbidity to a great extent. For instance, diseases like smallpox, diphtheria, and measles have declined by almost 100% in US and other diseases like pertussis, tetanus, and rubella have declined by more than 90% by 19983. Further, 322,089 thousand illness, 21,055 thousand hospitalization, and 731.7 thousand deaths have been prevented through regular vaccines to children from 1994 to 20134. Vaccination is all about our safety and the safety of the people we surround. In the debate for mandatory vaccination for children I believe it is the duty of the government to ensure public safety and for this reason vaccines should be made compulsory. Parents might disagree with this law because they are not sure about the safety of vaccination schedule; however, the government can ensure them by proving the effectiveness of vaccination schedule. Make vaccines compulsory for all children is the right thing to do.
As the saying goes “Prevention is better than Cure”. This is what vaccines are all about. Vaccines help prevent a disease by making one’s body immune to it. I also agree with Kristen A. Feemster that mandatory vaccine is a shared responsibility. By getting our child immunized, we not only protect our child but also everyone surrounding him/her. To add to her words, by making vaccinations compulsory for every child, the officials will be able to create a more safe and healthy environment where a very few people get infected. Parents should understand that this law has been made to protect their children. If any of their community member gets infected their child will remain immune to that disease because of the vaccination. Furthermore, they will be less likely to fall sick at times of an outbreak. As I mentioned earlier, it is always better to take precautions rather than spend money to get
cured. Feermster also points out a really important point of the “vaccination confidence gap”. She states that in order to gain trust of the people, the scientific and public health community should make sure that their involvement and schedule is safe and effective. Also, Feermster confirms that the present vaccination schedule is both safe and effective. I however believe that the scientific and public health community should not only ensure but also get the public to believe in the safety and efficiency of the vaccination schedule they follow. This is necessary because majority of the public is concerned whether the vaccination schedule will be safe for their children in the short and long run. They should let the public know if their schedule is revised several times and that there is no safer option other than that schedule. Mandating vaccinations for children is the best way to prevent diseases and create a healthy environment. This law is for the best for everyone as an individual and as a community member.
Kriti Singhvi,
Student
Boston University
Word Count: 557
Work Cited
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "Ten great public health achievements--United States, 1900-1999." MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 48, no. 12 (1999): 241, accessed May 23, 2014, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm
"The Opinion Pages Room for Debate: Making Vaccination Mandatory for All Children." The New York Times, accessed May 23, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/23/making-vaccination-mandatory-for-all-children
Whitney, Cynthia G., MD, et al. “Benefits from Immunization During the Vaccines for Children Program Era — United States, 1994–2013.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, accessed May 23, 2014.