Here's another one of my rather controversial essays. I feel quite strongly about this topic, and I hope it will be beneficial to anyone researching this topic and trying to make decisions for their own family. :)
I also included my works cited at the bottom. :)
I also included my works cited at the bottom. :)
Vaccination: A Vehicle of Immunity
Before the widespread use of vaccines, disease was much more common and deadly. It was not unusual to know multiple people who were infected with a deadly virus. Once a person contracted a disease, not much could be done for them.
Thanks to vaccinations, however, this prevalence of disease no longer exists in the United States and other developed countries. One example in the article, “Childhood Vaccinations Are Important for Public Health”, is that of smallpox. This lethal disease was the cause of death for millions worldwide per year. That is, until in 1967 when the World Health Organization embarked on a mission to vaccinate the world against smallpox. In the span of twelve years, the virus was entirely wiped out. There has not been another case of smallpox since, and the credit goes to vaccination (2). Thus, smallpox is no longer a cause of concern in the world, but if it had not been for vaccinations, the disease would still be killing countless amounts of people.
The attack against the smallpox virus was obviously a highly successful effort. It is, however, the only disease to have been completely removed from the world, as of yet. Other diseases – such as measles, whooping cough, and tetanus – are still rampant in underdeveloped countries, and continue to be responsible for the deaths of millions every year. Some parents may be under the impression that since such diseases are not common in the United States, there is no need for their children to receive vaccination against them. This is a dangerous assumption. All it takes is for one person to contract a disease, and it can pass along to any who are not immune to it. For instance, if a person carrying a measles virus visits a previously uncontaminated area, an unvaccinated child would be completely vulnerable to contracting measles. On the other hand, if the child’s parents had been diligent in vaccinating her, she would have a much greater chance of avoiding the measles virus.
Furthermore, if the child, herself, wishes to travel to foreign countries later in life, having been vaccinated will help to preserve her health while surrounded by disease. As previously stated, many diseases are still rampant and lethal in other countries. One cannot assume that he or she will remain healthy when traveling, especially to third-world countries. Vaccines allow one to travel without fear of disease.
Not only must one be concerned with the worldwide spread of disease, but also with protecting the health of one’s own community. If an unvaccinated person contracts a disease, he could be responsible for infecting many others around him. While vaccinations are extremely effective in protecting against disease, they do not guarantee 100% immunity. Thus, people rely on the health and immunity of those around them. This being the case, parents who choose to take the protective measure of vaccinating their children will not appreciate the risk an unvaccinated child presents. As the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society puts it, “Even a small number of unimmunized individuals in a community can facilitate the spread of disease. In the late 1980’s, pockets of unimmunized children in the U.S. led to a resurgence of measles that caused 11,000 hospitalizations and 123 deaths” (2). Clearly, endangering an entire community because of a personal choice to refrain from vaccinations is not worth the risk.
As mentioned earlier, people must rely on the immunity of those around them. Even more so, people who are unable to receive vaccinations due to health issues depend upon their community’s immunity. “Childhood Vaccinations Are Important for Public Health” points out: “Some children can’t get certain vaccines for medical reasons, or some children are not able to respond to certain vaccines. For these children, the immunity of people around them is their only protection” (1). It displays inconsideration when parents put the health of other children at risk by refusing to vaccinate their own children.
Some parents’ refusal of vaccines comes from the belief that vaccines are morally wrong, and they claim exemption from them on the basis that vaccines go against their convictions. However, the predominant claim that these people make is, in fact, incorrect. Many people would insist that vaccines contain tissue from aborted fetuses, thus leading anti-abortionists to believe that receiving a vaccination contradicts their values. This, however, is simply a case of misinformation. In his article “Vaccines DO NOT Contain Fetal Tissue” Dr. Jay L. Wile states: “[A]nyone with a modicum of training in biology will tell you that it is impossible for vaccines (or any other injected medicine) to contain human tissue. The reason is simple: if you are injected with anything containing tissue from another person, your body will immediately recognize it as an invader and begin attacking it.” (1). Ergo, those who choose not to vaccinate their children due to pro-life beliefs are making this choice based on faulty information.
While the claim that vaccines contain fetal tissue is untrue, it is not completely unfounded. The viruses used in Hepatitis A vaccine, the MMR vaccine, and the chicken pox vaccine were originally derived from the tissue of two aborted fetuses. These fetuses were aborted in the 1960’s because they were infected with a virus, but not for the purpose of using the tissue for scientific research. In short, the fetuses would have been aborted whether their tissue was donated for use in the vaccines or not. Dr. Wile compares this situation to a case in which a murdered individual is able to donate his or her heart to save a dying child in need of a heart transplant. He then states:
"Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder" (1).
Hence, to abstain from taking advantage of the benefits of these vaccinations is to waste the good that came of the deaths of those two aborted babies. Furthermore, since such claims that vaccines are morally wrong are incorrect, parents who continue to refuse vaccination of their children are endangering others without cause.
Ultimately, though, the most compelling reason for parents to accept vaccinations is the protection of their own children. Beyond concern about worldwide and local health, it is the desire of all parents for their own children to be healthy. Parents have a responsibility to do all they can to preserve their children’s well-being, and one way to do so is by having them vaccinated.
No good parent would want his or her child to become infected with a lethal virus – or any illness, for that matter. Hence, it seems only natural that all parents would jump at the chance to safeguard their children against infection. However, just as there are concerns about the morality of vaccines, there are also concerns about the safety of them. Many parents have heard that vaccines cause autism, leading them to fear that their child may develop this disorder upon receiving vaccinations. In her article, “Increase in Autism”, Sarah Glazer says, “A third of the parents of autistic children say their children developed normally in their first months or year and then began losing social skills or language. Many of the parents blame vaccines, since they first observed the regression after the children received routine vaccinations” (7). However, there is no proof that vaccines were indeed the cause. Glazer also states: “[T]he Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — the standard handbook of psychiatrists — has broadened the definition of autism in recent years to include milder variants of the disorder” (5). Consequently, the seeming increase in autism could, in reality, be only a broadening of terms, rather than a problem caused by vaccines.
Another concern that many parents have is a valid one. If a child is allergic to an ingredient of a vaccine, then the injection of the vaccine could be fatal. There is, however, a way to avoid this danger: parents should wait until their child is at least two years of age before having them vaccinated. In doing so, they will have time to discover any allergies and therefore avoid any vaccines which would cause an allergic reaction in their child.
One of the most obviously beneficial reasons for parents to have their children vaccinated is simply to prevent them from contracting disease. There are vaccines providing immunity against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis, diphtheria, and the list goes on. Unless he or she is unable to receive vaccinations due to health problems, there is no reason not to shield a child against such devastating diseases. Additionally, the only way, other than vaccination, to gain immunity to a disease is to contract it. Vaccines provide immunity to children without requiring them to become infected.
Moreover, parents who fail to vaccinate their children are not doing all they can to prove their care and protection. Parents who genuinely care about their children would not willingly withhold from them defense against danger. Nonetheless, this is what they are unknowingly doing by refusing to vaccinate their children. The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society makes a good point concerning exemptions from vaccinations based on personal beliefs:
"For example, parents cannot be exempted from placing infants in car seats simply because they do not “believe” in them…In this context, it is wrong to allow parents to exempt their children from required immunizations based on their personal beliefs. Exemption directly exposes children (who have no personal say in the matter) to harm." (3)
Thus, parents should not be allowed to endanger their children, even indirectly, by failing to protect them against illness.
All in all, the success of vaccines seems to speak for itself. Despite any possible dangers, the overall effectiveness of vaccines has been dramatic. For this reason, parents should not hesitate to provide for their children that vehicle of immunity called “vaccination”.
Works Cited
Glazer, S. “Increase in Autism.” (2003, June 13). CQ Researcher, 13, 545-568. Web. 31 Oct. 2012
Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. "Mandatory Vaccinations with Few Exceptions Are Necessary for Public Health." Vaccines. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "A Statement Regarding Personal Belief Exemption from Immunization Mandates." 2011. 1-5. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 31 Oct. 2012.
Wile, Jay L. “Vaccines DO NOT Contain Fetal Tissue”. (2009). Proslogion, n. pag. Web. 4 Nov. 2012
