Vaccination was first introduced globally for small pox and later on extended to other communicable diseases which are now known as vaccine preventable disease. Vaccination is beneficial both for individuals and community. This bring us to the ethical dilemma - Vaccination of a healthy child with the intention of protecting both the individual child and the community at the same time exposing the child to the theoretical risk of exposure to disease products whether live, attenuated or killed. There was a time when people never questioned the government or their physicians. Now because of more public awareness and accessibility to medical information, they are questioning the safety aspects of vaccines.
Most of the time parents take decision for a minor, even in the worst scenarios their decisions are always for the best interest of the child. Parental autonomy should always be respected unless the child is at greatest risk for not getting the vaccine.
Is it justifiable to scare the public by the statement by not vaccinating yourself or your child it poses a threat for the community? Who has the right to take a decision for a child – parent or physician or the legislation? Whose interest is to protect a community by vaccination – the government, the legislation, the pharmaceutical companies, researchers, physician or the individual?
The Case
Mrs. A with her new born is at a pediatric clinic. She is been advised to vaccinate her baby for a disease X,Y, and Z. Mrs A has a discussion with Dr.D regarding the benefits of vaccines, possible side effects and why her baby needs to be vaccinated. She understands the benefits and the risks, but decides not to immunize her baby because she believes that her baby is not at risk of contractin...
... middle of paper ...
...iriam Fine-Goulden Opticon1826, Issue 8, Spring 2010
16. Bradley, Peter, ‘Should childhood immunization be compulsory?’, J Med Ethics, 25 (1999)
17. Isaacs, David et al., ‘Ethical issues in immunisation’, Vaccine, 27 (2009):
18. Salmon, Daniel A. and Saad B. Omer, ‘Individual freedoms versus collective responsibility:immunization decision-making in the face of occasionally competing values’, Emerging Themes Epid, 3 (2006):
19. Moran, Nicola E. et al., ‘From compulsory to voluntary immunisation: Italy’s National Vaccination Pland (2005-2007) and the ethical and organizational challenges facing public health policy-makers across Europe’, J Med Ethics, 34 (2008):
20. Kennedy, Alison M et al., ‘Vaccine beliefs of parents who oppose compulsory vaccination’, Pub Health Rep, 120 (2005)
21. Isaacs, David et al., ‘Ethical issues in immunisation’, Vaccine, 27 (2009): 615-618.
“Vaccinations are causing a major upsurge in childhood diseases, adult maladies, and even deadly ailments such as Gulf War Syndrome and Lou Gehrig’s disease” (Blaylock). Every now and then an individual’s doctor calls telling them about the latest vaccine they should receive. The person immediately schedules a time to come in and get it done. But do they even give a second thought about it? Have they ever thought that maybe they do not need another vaccination? Many people have not taken the time to seriously think about the process of immunization. The truth is, there are many dangers that the average person should be unaware of. Rarely do vaccines actually accomplish what the public has been told. In fact, a lot of vaccines contain harmful substances that have been linked to disorders such as autism. The lack of education and dishonesty from doctors are putting people in danger of health problems without even realizing. Many parents feel obligated for their children to get vaccinated because of school, not knowing they have the alternative option of refusing immunization.
The use of vaccinations has been a major topic in the news lately. The decision to or not to vaccinate your child is a decision that parents face each day. For some the decision is an easy one, a no-brainer. For others, it’s a very difficult one to make. People that are pro-vaccine believe that they are protecting their children and the future generations by vaccinating them against diseases that they could potentially get. People that are ant-vaccine believe that by choosing not to vaccinate, they are protecting their children and future generations from the serious side effects that they could potentially get from the vaccination.
This article focus on a document publishes in the Canadian Paediatric Society website, which can help council hesitant parent that refuse to vaccine their children due to safety concern. This article use research information and premeditated steps to exemplify the issue surrounding the use of vaccine on children. Research shows that health care provider has a major influence on parental decision. In addition, Doctors should take into consideration and understand parent’s specific concern, by taking the time to explain the evidence so the hesitant parents will have a better understanding and this will determine whether a child get immunize. The information that present in the article comes from the “CPS” Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee, which is research and educational source. This article provide a clear information on what can happen if a child is not vaccinate, due to the facts that parents believe if their child is healthy and strong that they will disease free. However, most parents based their information on what they heard on the media and internet for example, that vaccine cause autism, there is no prove that it does, however things like that will make any parents not want to vaccine their child. There are consequences of a parent not having their child. In Ontario if a child is not immunize they are, not allowed in the school system, this is due to the risk that may occur. For example, a child who is vaccine, but may have a low immune system will mostly like catch whatever disease or bacteria when he encounters that specific chi...
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Public confidence in immunization is critical to sustaining and increasing vaccination coverage rates and preventing outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs)” (para. 1). In recent history, there has been a significant decline in public confidence because of a variety of factors, such as vaccination does not always mean immunization, vaccines expose children to toxins, and children can build immunity naturally. The number of parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children is growing yearly because there are certain exemptions that parents can claim, even if the vaccine is mandatory in their state.
Omer, Saad B., Dr. "Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases — NEJM." New England Journal of Medicine. Web. 13 May 2014.
Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(19), 1981–1988. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0806477
... today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow,” (“National Vaccine…”). Although this is an extremist view, it has a simple truth to it: America is a free country, which should guarantee that parents would have the freedom to choose against vaccination.
“Childhood vaccines not only have personal benefits, but for entire communities and the future of public health” (Espejo 1). If a child goes without immunization, then he or she is also putting others at risk. Most parents do not consider all of the options and effects that come along with not having their child vaccinated. Many are quick to reject because of the possible side effects and harm it could cause. However, nothing in today’s world is completely harmless. An adult can easily be in a danger at work, while the child is in danger of disease at daycare. That is why it is completely necessary to vaccinate. By doing this, family, friends, and others are being protected as well (Allen 71). “There are also children who cannot get certain vaccines for medical or other reasons, and those who are too young to be vaccinated. These children have no protection if they are exposed to someone who is infected with a communicable disease” (Espejo 4). Commonly, this is not thought
Forced vaccinations, a topic of controversy facing our nation today, are vaccinations that are required to be received by the government. Many of the vaccinations required are for severe diseases and infections such as tetanus, chickenpox, influenza, measles, and polio. These diseases are correlated to be some of the most threatening around the world. Most of those vaccines are given to people normally when they are children. Numerous parents disagree with letting their children receive vaccinations due to some of the risks involved. Possible side effects of vaccinations include fever, rashes, body aches, and sometimes death. Many of these, however, are very rare because of the increase in science technology. Parents that stand against the vaccination of their child put not only their own, but other children in the community
Children can possibly escape from being infected by deadly communicable diseases while the chance of suffering other pain such as fever and injection can not be ignored. Vaccination provides tough protection to both vaccinated children and unvaccinated children, sometimes including their parents and other relative adults as well (Glass, 2011, pp. 975-976; Lopman, Curns, Yen & Parashar, 2011, p. 983). However, there is no vaccine which can promise to be totally safe (Bigham & Hoefer, 2011, p. 173). Therefore, children are still exposed to the possibility of being affected by diverse side effects after immunization. Even if vaccinations are recommended by the government, it is important and necessary for parents to evaluate both the advantages and drawbacks objectively before they vaccinate their children. On the other hand, the government needs to take action to encourage childhood immunization programs and implement mandatory school-entry policies. Meanwhile, health care professionals and physicians should emphasize the interaction and communication with the parents to relieve their fears and hesitation (Diekema, 2012, pp.
Ethically speaking, patients have a right to autonomy. The patient or parent has the right to make his or her own medical decisions even when the provider is in disagreement. However, this should not necessarily preclude the patient from receiving necessary medical care. What further complicates the issue is the need for the provider to protect the health of the health of the public. Protecting the population from infectious diseases requires a high level of immunization in a population. Under-immunized populations can lead to the destruction of herd immunity, which, in turn, can lead to non-immunized individuals becoming infected. It is for this reason that decreased immunization rates creates an ethical issue with serious public health repercussions. Vaccine preventable diseases are dependent on herd immunity to increase population-wide protection to those individuals that cannot be immunized due to issues such as age, immunosuppression, underlying disease, or allergies (Halperin, Melnychuk, Downie, & MacDonald,
Health care professionals and health educators were identified as instrumental in the effort to educate and positively influence immunisation, well informed doctors and nurses are the key in preventing parents refusing childhood immunisations. Redsell et al (2010) pointed out that surveys show some parents criticised the information they received about the vaccination from healthcare staff, suggesting it was of poor quality and biased in favour of immunisation. Health care providers need to be more fully prepared to have productive discussions with parents who resist or refuse immunisation. Redsell et al. (2010) recommended that parents and young people should be provided with tailored information, advice and support to ensure they know about the recommended routine childhood vaccinations and the benefits and risks. When parents chose to refuse vaccination, health care providers need to listen carefully and validate why parents may hold a specific belief about
Many parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are often shamed and stereotyped for putting their own kids at risk. But what I find to be stranger than this attack on individual freedom and choice, is that the parents who do vaccinate their children are attacking those who don’t because they believe that their vaccinated children are at a risk.
According to World Book Advanced Encyclopedia, immunization is defined as the process of protecting the body against disease by means of vaccines or serums (Hinman). While medical science backs up the efficiency and necessity of vaccines, within the past decade, a rise in parents disbelieving the medical community and neglecting to immunize their children has occurred. This “fear of vaccines” is nothing new, but with the ever-increasing safety of vaccines, the benefits of inoculation far outweigh the risks. Parents who refuse to vaccinate, or anti-vaxxers, put more than their children’s lives on the line, but also risk the safety of the whole community. Because vaccines are essential to protecting individuals and communities
The Immunization study was released over 18 years ago by Andrew Wakefield and 12 others (Sathyanarayana Rao & Andrade, 2011) however, the effects of it still make a wave in the majority of parent’s decision to vaccinate their children, as it is a story that the majority of us may have never read, but have