Category: Vaccination

Introduction

The health of the nation is one of the major concerns of modern society. Due to the multiple efforts and focus on the cultivation of healthy lifestyle humanity managed to achieve significant success in struggling with many diseases. Today, there are only rare cases of illnesses that previously killed millions of people and devastated lands. To a greater degree, it is a preconditioned by the scientific progress and appearance of vaccines that radically altered the situation in the healthcare sector and decreased mortality rates of newborns.

However, regardless of the apparent positive effect of vaccinations on the health of the nation, there are multiple fears associated with this practice presupposing that there are some risks because of the damage done to various organs. In the majority of cases, these concerns are related to the lack of information about how modern vaccines work and can be eliminated by effective educational work.

Mechanism of Functioning

First of all, the mechanism of functioning should be explained. In general, it can be described as a specific training course for the immune system of a person. The fact is that when the body firstly faces a pathogen, virus, or another foreign invader, it needs several days to introduce an appropriate response by producing antibodies that try to eliminate antigens and protect an individual from the further development of the disease (Griesenauer & Kinch, 2017).

However, it can take several days which is too long when speaking about some serious systemic problems. For this reason, there is a need for a tool that will help the body and the immune system to work more effectively. Vaccines are made of dead or weakened antigens that cannot precondition the development of infection; however, they are still recognized as enemies and initiate the production of antibodies (Griesenauer & Kinch, 2017). It helps the immune system to create memory cells that will remain in the body and help it to recognize and eliminate antigens if they appear again.

New Methods

Accepting the importance of this practice, scientists devote much attention to the development of new ways to produce safer and more effective vaccines that can save people and promote the further improvement of the health of the nation. Traditional methods presupposed the generation of antigens using specific cell lines. Being grown in bioreactors, they are later isolated and weakened to ensure that the body will recognize the danger but will not suffer from it (Griesenauer & Kinch, 2017).

However, there are many new approaches that are developed today and considered a safer option. For instance, biotechnology is used today to separate a pure antigen using special monoclonal antibodies or to synthesize an antigen using cloned genes (Griesenauer & Kinch, 2017). Additionally, the usage of cultural mammalian cells can be considered another innovative option preconditioning the outstanding success of vaccination practices and improving along with the minimization of risks.

Diseases

The importance of vaccination and adherence to the specific schedule is also evidenced by the fact that all civilized countries with the developed infrastructure insist on using this tool to protect babies from the most dangerous diseases, decrease mortality, and increase the quality of people’s lives. Thus, in the USA, there is a focus on the improvement of the health of the nation with an emphasis on the necessity to vaccinate all children.

That is why the routine vaccination includes such diseases as hepatitis B, rotavirus, diphtheria, hepatitis A, influenza, measles, mumps, chickenpox, meningococcal, varicella, human papillomavirus (McKee & Bohannon, 2016). All these illnesses might have a significant effect on the health of an individual and cause substantial harm. That is why there is a strong recommendation to ensure that a child has all these vaccines and will be able to grow not suffering from various complications.

Reduction of Incidence

If to analyze statistics related to the discussed issue, one can also see the positive impact vaccinations have on the frequency of diseases mentioned above. First of all, mainly due to the effective use of this tool, humanity managed to minimize the threat from such severe illnesses as diphtheria (100% decrease), measles (99% decrease), smallpox (100%), and rubella (99%) (Greenwood, 2014). Additionally, significant improvement can be seen if to speak about hepatitis A (91%), hepatitis B (83%), and H. influenza (99%) (Greenwood, 2014).

These numbers evidence that modern vaccination practice can be considered an effective tool to struggle against various contagious or severe diseases and improve the quality of people’s lives. Additionally, a reduction in these numbers means that millions of people are saved and can live enjoying the high quality of their lives.

Fears

However, regardless of these statistics, there are still some people who are worried about giving their children vaccines and create a dangerous precedent. In general, there are four main groups of reasons that precondition such behavior which are religious reasons, personal beliefs, safety concerns, and lack of information about the issue (McKee & Bohannon, 2016). Today, there is a belief that a vaccine can cause substantial harm to a child by affecting his/her organs and preventing him/her from sustainable development because of the injection of a virus (McKee & Bohannon, 2016). Trying to protect their children, parents might refuse the proposed schedule and avoid vaccination. The movement of anti-vaccinationists is rather a popular today which can be considered a direct threat to the health of the nation.

Scientific Evidence

From the scientific point of view, there are no reasons for the refusal of vaccines. First of all, the current scientific progress results in the evolution of the methods that are used to invent effective vaccination practices. It results in an improved opportunity to struggle against pathogens (McKee & Bohannon, 2016).

Additionally, investigations prove that the risks of being damaged by modern immunization practices are insignificant if compare with the risk of becoming ill or affected by one of the diseases that can be prevented by vaccines (McKee & Bohannon, 2016). Moreover, there is also a focus on the minimization of adverse effects that might appear in people and guarantee that they will not suffer from various complications. For this reason, modern vaccination can be considered a safe practice that should be accepted by all people.

Conclusion

Altogether, the modern world significantly benefits from the creation, introduction, and further development of various immunization practices that are used to prevent the evolution of diseases that can be fatal to people. For this reason, it is strongly recommended for everyone to become vaccinated and guarantee a high quality of life along with the absence of problems in the future. Moreover, the use of innovative techniques along with the constant improvement of available vaccines results in the achievement of better outcomes. That is why every person should adhere to this practice to enjoy a high quality of life as there are no reasons to disregard it.

References

Greenwood, B. (2014). The contribution of vaccination to global health: Past, present and future. Philosophical Transactions B, 369(1645). Web.

Griesenauer, R., & Kinch, M. (2017). An overview of FDA-approved vaccines & their innovators. Expert Review of Vaccines, 16(12), 1253-1266. Web.

McKee, C., & Bohannon, K. (2016). Exploring the reasons behind parental refusal of vaccines. The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 21(2), 104-109. Web.

Abstract

This paper is a critical review of a research article involving the use of simulation to determine factors that contribute to the spread of measles when a person within a given area contracts the disease. The paper is divided into five sections, and each addresses a different aspect of the research article. The introduction states the research problem and explains why it is important to nursing. The methods section discusses the study design and how it fits the purpose of the study. It also describes the sampling procedure and protocol. The results section discusses the study’s findings. The discussion section explains how the study’s findings relate to the stated purpose, while the last section covers the overall presentation and the final summary of the article.

Introduction

The research problem is clearly stated in the paper. According to the authors, cases of measles continue to be reported in the United States even after endemic measles transmission was eliminated from the country. For example, on January 23, 2015, 68 measles cases were reported in California after people visited two Disney theme parks (Liu et al., 2015). In 2013, an unvaccinated adolescent visited London, and upon return to New York, he had contracted the disease, and it led to 58 reported cases of measles, which was the largest outbreak in the country since 1996 (Liu et al., 2015).

Therefore, the research problem is linked to this scenario and the need to identify factors that contribute to the occurrence of measles epidemics. This problem is important to nursing because after understanding how measles spreads, care providers can be in a position to prevent occurrences and be prepared to address any outbreaks in case they happen. This study is justified because the circumstances under which the tracing of individuals affected during an outbreak and other associated intervention measures given by different health departments to control measles epidemics are not known. Therefore, this study would fill this knowledge gap.

The study’s purpose is stated clearly – “to identify the characteristics of population vaccination coverage, clustering of susceptibility, individuals’ behaviors, and the public health response that impact the occurrence of measles epidemics” (Liu et al., 2015, p. 2). The theoretical or conceptual framework used for the study was not mentioned, but it is implied. The authors argue that identifying factors that contribute to measles epidemics could enable the relevant authorities to create a framework to prevent and address measles epidemics if they occur.

The implied framework helps in the achievement of the research objectives, and thus the two are linked. The literature review is current even though in 2015 when the current study was published, some sources were older than ten years. Sixty-two references were used, and nine of them were published in the 1990s. Of the remaining sources, fifteen were published within five years while the rest were published in the 2000s. The literature review section is missing. However, the authors gave a background section, which could be taken to represent the literature review.

The literature review is organized logically to support different sections of the paper. Additionally, the literature review supports the need for the study adequately. The authors used this section to discuss the need for having this study based on the documented evidence that measles outbreaks continue to be reported in the US especially among communities with minimal levels of herd immunity due to the lack of vaccination for various reasons.

The literature review also highlighted the problems associated with tracking down individuals affected with the disease and other intervention measures taken to control the spread of measles and prevent epidemics. For instance, the authors noted that health officials might not be in a position to identify possible infections and the contact persons in time for post-exposure prophylaxis to be useful in case of an outbreak.

Methods

The study used a simulation-based research design. This design, albeit uncommon in conventional research, fits the purpose of the study. The simulation model used was agent-based whereby transmission of measles was studied after the introduction of one index case into a specified synthetic population. Therefore, this design fits the purpose of the study as it allowed the authors to study the effects of public health interventions, such as contact tracing, when measles epidemics occur.

The design is linked to the sampling method and statistical analysis. The sample used is drawn from a synthetic population of participants drawn from the Synthetic Population Database maintained by RTI International. The analysis used Latin Hyperbole sample parameters to simulate one year of transmission after the introduction of the index case. Therefore, the analysis and sampling procedures are linked to the simulation-based research design of the study.

Due to the nature of the study, the sample involved parameters, and in this study, a Latin Hyperbole sample of 1024 parameter sets was selected. The four major parameters chosen for this study included ”

1. vaccination coverage,
2. level of immunity clustering (Ω),
3. intervention delay, and
4. contact finding probability to explore factors which contribute to the successful control of measles (i.e., the probability of uncontrolled measles outbreak)” (Liu et al., 2015, p. 7).

The sampling procedure is discussed in detail, but the authors did not justify the size of the sample.

The study protocol involved a synthetic population representing all individuals within California based on the U.S. Census and the California Department of Finance population estimates. Daycares were added to the synthetic population in a bid to capture the transmission of measles among pre-schooled children in the region. Additionally, the research protocol entailed simulations to cover the four parameters used for the study. First, to investigate the contact network and transmission, the simulation was based on interactions among people in various locations in California. To assess clusters of immunity, model clusters of susceptible individuals were created. Similarly, another model was created to simulate contact tracing and public health intervention strategies.

The instruments described in the article are the Latin Hyperbole parameters. Each parameter measures the concept it was intended to measure. In other words, the concept definition is consistent with the operational definition. For example, the contact network and transmission measured how measles transmission occurs following the interaction of individuals in a specified area. Similarly, the clusters of immunity parameters measured the level of vaccinations against measles in different regions across California. The authors did not present information on the reliability and validity of the instruments used for this study.

To address the threats of internal and external validity, which are inherent in the study design, the authors carried out sensitivity analysis. This step sought to establish the appropriate and useful parameters in determining the “number of secondary cases, the outbreak size, and the probability of uncontrolled outbreak in a one year of measles transmission” (Liu et al., 2015, p. 7). For each parameter set, 256 replications were computed.

The authors indicated that the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the California Department of Public Health reviewed the project and established that it did not involve human subjects. Consequently, there are no indications of any ethical concerns. The study is discussed in enough detail for replication. For definiteness, the authors chose Humboldt County in California, with a population of 118,261 persons, and simulations were done based on each individual. This study population is large enough for the generalization of results in other set-ups.

Results

The characteristics of the sample are described thoroughly. The chosen synthetic population represented every person in the targeted geographical location. Demographic data, such as age and sex, for all individuals used in the simulation and their respective locations for social activity (workplace, school, neighborhood, and household) were collected for this study. The authors did not indicate the research questions or hypotheses.

However, one research question could be derived from the study’s purpose, and it was answered independently. The data collected for this study included contact networks and transmission based on vaccination coverage, the clusters of immunity, contact tracing, and public health intervention measures taken to address an outbreak.

For data analysis purposes, the simulated model was analyzed in two steps. The first one was the selection of a Latin Hypercube sample (38,39) containing parameters picked from the given ranges. For each parameter set, the epidemic was replicated 256 times. The partial rank correlation coefficient (PRCC) (40,41) was computed between each input parameter and simulation outcomes. Scenario analysis was also carried out for the four chosen parameters. Tables were used to present data, such as parameters being investigated including vaccination coverage and immunity threshold. The text supplements the data in the tables by discussing what different values mean within the overall context of the research.

The findings indicated that the level of vaccination coverage against measles and the clustering of immunity are key characteristics that determine public health preparedness and the ability to control epidemics. On vaccination coverage, if the number of individuals vaccinated against measles within a given area is over 95 percent, the chances of an outbreak, if one individual is exposed to the disease, are low.

However, if the level of vaccination coverage is less than 85 percent, outbreaks are likely to occur after an individual within the region is exposed to measles. The level of vaccination coverage is directly proportional to the herd immunity or immunity clustering. The level of public health preparedness to trace individuals that have contracted measles for the appropriate intervention measures also contributes significantly to the spread of the disease. For instance, if the response is delayed and contact individuals cannot be traced immediately, the risk of an outbreak increases significantly.

Discussion/Implications for practice

The authors relate the findings to the study’s purpose. For example, the authors conclude that their findings prove that the levels of vaccination coverage and herd immunity are major characteristics that determine the spread of measles within a given geographical location. The findings of the study are similar to those from previous studies. According to the authors, previous mathematical epidemiology studies had concluded that vaccination coverage and herd immunity played an important role in the control of the spread of measles during an outbreak. However, the authors did not discuss the findings that conflict with previous work.

The limitations of this study include the lack of enough empirical evidence for the majority of the behavior-related parameters used in this model. Additionally, the stochastic agent-based model used in this study does not allow for the different intervention measures that can be taken during a response to an outbreak. For instance, children aged between six and eleven months could get one dose of MMR vaccine as opposed to intramuscular IG within 72 hours of exposure provided the child would get another vaccination within 12 months. Finally, the study considered vaccination clustering among individuals aged less than 18 years.

Therefore, information on adult vaccination clustering is missing. Additionally, the model’s contact network did not consider healthcare settings, and thus critical information on the intervention measures might be missing, which affects the reliability of the results. The new research that has emerged is that another study could be carried out using data collected from real-life cases as opposed to a simulation. The study’s findings could be potentially used in nursing practice to ensure that public health departments are prepared to prevent the occurrence of epidemics and address any outbreaks that may arise.

Overall Presentation and Final Summary

The title accurately describes the type of study, major variables, and the target population. From the title, the reader notices that the study investigates the role of different factors, such as individual behaviors, vaccination, and public health response, in the process of controlling measles outbreaks using simulation for California. Additionally, the abstract accurately represents the study. It is divided into different sections including background, methods, results, and conclusions.

Therefore, looking at the abstract the reader can know the purpose of the study, the methods used in data collection, results, and the conclusions made by the authors. The report is logically consistent, as the authors present a research problem, and then proceed to carry out a study to prove or disprove their thesis. Additionally, the writing style is clear and concise as the language used is simple, and thus a wide audience can read and understand the study.

Reference

Liu, F., Enanoria, W. T., Zipprich, J., Blumberg, S., Harriman, K., Ackley, S. F., … Porco, T. C. (2015). The role of vaccination coverage, individual behaviors, and the public health response in the control of measles epidemics: An agent-based simulation for California. BMC Public Health, 15(447), 1-16. Web.

Abstract

This paper is a review of a quantitative research study using the article, “HPV Awareness and Vaccine Acceptability in Hispanic Women Living along the US-Mexico Border.” The paper is divided into introduction, methods, results, discussion, and summary. Each section discusses different aspects of the article under review. The introduction explores the background of the study, literature review, and its relevance to nursing. The methods section highlights the study design, sample size, and the instruments used for data collection. The results segment gives the findings of the study. Under discussion, the study’s findings are synthesized, while the summary gives the overall presentation of the article.

Introduction

The research problem is that despite the elaborate measures that have been put in place to prevent cervical cancer in the United States, Hispanic women are disproportionately affected by this health condition in terms of morbidity, mortality, and incidence rates. One of the causes of this disparity is the lack of awareness among Hispanic women. The authors did not state the research problem in the paper. This problem is important to nursing because cervical cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the US, but the incidence rate could be reduced through prevention. Therefore, nurses could play an important role in creating awareness among the affected groups of individuals to sensitize them on the need to be vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV), which is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Most individuals do not have the appropriate information concerning the need to take preventive measures against cervical cancer.

The study is justified because establishing the level of HPV, cervical cancer, and HPV vaccine knowledge among Hispanic women would pave the way for the formulation of strategies on patient education on the issue. Additionally, Hispanic women continue to bear the burden of high morbidity and mortality cases of cervical cancer, and this problem could be linked to their level of understanding of preventive measures such as HPV vaccination. The authors stated the purpose of the study was “to assess the level of knowledge of a mostly Hispanic group of females attending a free cervical cancer screening booth at a health fair in a border community” (Molokwu, Fernandez, & Martin, 2013, p. 541).

In the article, a theoretical or conceptual framework is not identified, but it is implied. By understanding the level of awareness concerning HPV, cervical cancer, and HPV vaccination among Hispanic women, care providers and policymakers could come up with effective strategies to address the issue. With improved awareness, it is expected that the affected groups would start taking the appropriate action, such as vaccination against HPV, as a preventive measure against cervical cancer. Therefore, it could be said that the framework is linked to the research purpose. The literature review section is missing in the article. However, in the introduction, the authors used several references. The majority of the references are current having been published in the last two or three years. However, one source is outdated because it was published in 1995. Nevertheless, the available literature is organized logically, and it supports the need for the study.

Methods

The cross-sectional study design was used for this article. In this form of the study, the participants differ on different characteristics, such as age, geographical location, and income level, at a given time. The design fits the purpose of the study because it involves collecting data from randomly selected participants to assess their level of awareness concerning HPV, HPV vaccination, and cervical cancer. Additionally, the design is linked to the sampling method whereby women attending free PAP screening services from 2007 to 2009. The design also forms the basis for the statistical analysis, whereby Chi-Square and Fisher’s Exact test was used to assess the relationship between the variables.

The sample included 229 women seeking free Pap screening services in Socorro City in El Paso County, Texas, from 2007 to 2009. For an individual to qualify as a participant, she had to attend the fair and visit the available booths for Pap smear information. Therefore, it suffices to say that the sample is adequately and clearly described in the article. The sampling procedure is discussed in detail. A clear inclusion-exclusion criterion is stated. The inclusion criteria required the participants to attend the fair and get information on the Pap smear issue. However, the authors state clearly that participating in the study was not a prerequisite for receiving the services.

The study protocol involved participants filling anonymous surveys while waiting for information on Pap smear services. The protocol is clear and concise because it outlines what the participants were required to do and the nature of the information they provided. The surveys entailed self-reported demographic information, such as age, income level, size of household, and race. To assess the level of knowledge concerning cervical cancer, the participants answered questions on the definition and causes of HPV and the associated vaccinations. Participants were also asked whether they would take HPV vaccination and recommend it to their daughters.

The instruments described in the article are surveys, which were used to collect self-reported data from the participants. The instrument measures the concept it is intended to measure – the surveys sought to assess the level of understanding among Hispanic women on cervical cancer and HPV. The concept defined as a tool for measuring the level of awareness is consistent with its operational definition. The authors present information on the reliability and validity of the instruments. All surveys with more than 50 percent of unanswered questions were excluded from the final analysis. The authors address threats to internal and external validity inherent in the study design by reporting the participants’ demographics as frequencies. The demographic questions were open-ended, and thus some participants identified themselves as Mexicans as opposed to Hispanics. This aspect would have caused a threat to validity if not addressed. The study does not have indications for any ethical concerns, but the institutional review board (IRB) approved it as indicated in the article. The study is also described with enough detail for replication, and thus the results could be generalized in other populations.

Results

The characteristics of the sample are described based on their demographic information, such as age, race, size of household, and income level. For example, the participants’ ages were placed into five categories (18-30, 31-40, 41-50, and >50). Information on the income level, the number of people in a household, and the last Pap smear were also grouped in a similar manner. The research questions or hypotheses were not stated clearly, and thus they are not answered separately.

The data collected were both quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative data included the participants’ age, income level, and size of household. On the other hand, qualitative data involved the participants’ race, HPV knowledge and acceptability, and their last Pap smear test. Chi Test statistics and Fisher’s Exact test were used to analyzing data to answer the research questions. These methods of analysis determined any associations between the different variables under study. For variables with associations, odds ratios were calculated using logistic regression. Tables were used to present data. The text supplements and expounds data in the tables. The tables present data on the different characteristics of the participants, such as age, race, income level, and size of household. The data are presented as frequency and percentages. The Chi-Square statistics are also presented using a table.

The results showed that over 40 percent of the participants had an annual income level of less than $10,000. 62 percent of the respondents had heard about HPV, but only 34.9 percent knew that it was associated with cervical cancer. 55 percent had heard of the HPV vaccine, 66 percent were willing to receive it, and 77 percent would recommend it for their daughters. Women aged over 50 years were willing to have their daughters vaccinated against HPV as compared to other age groups. The results indicate low levels of awareness of HPV as a causal factor of cervical cancer.

Discussion/Implications for Practice

The authors related the findings to the study’s purpose. The objective was to assess the level of awareness of HPV and cervical cancer among Hispanic women and the results are tied directly to this aim. The findings of this study are consistent with findings from previous studies, which indicate low levels of HPV and cervical cancer among Hispanic women. The authors discussed findings that conflict with previous work. A 2010 study sought to evaluate the HPV knowledge among Hispanic women in the US. The results indicated that around 70 percent of Hispanic women in the US knew that HPV is a cervical cancer causal factor. However, the current study indicated this awareness to be at 34.9 percent. The authors acknowledge that the differences between these two studies could be due to the age and socioeconomic status of the participants.

The major limitation of the study is that the participants were women seeking Pap smear services. Therefore, the results may not be extrapolated in general populations. Additionally, the surveys were self-administered, hence exposed to personal bias. The new research topic that emerged from this study is that Hispanic women in the US are willing to accept HPV vaccines for themselves and their daughters despite lacking the appropriate knowledge on HPV being a cause of cervical cancer. This study could be used in the nursing practice to create awareness of the need to have HPV vaccination among Hispanic females in the US. This aspect would reduce the mortality and morbidity rates associated with cervical cancer in this study population.

Overall Presentation and Final Summary

The title accurately describes the type of study, major variables, and the target population. The major variables were HPV awareness and vaccine acceptability among Hispanic women in the US, which is also the target population. The abstract accurately represents the study as it gives a concise summary of the entire article. Additionally, the report is logically consistent as it follows clearly stated subtopics including introduction, methods, results, analysis, discussion, and conclusion. The writing is also clear and concise, as it does not burden the reader with unnecessary information.

Reference

Molokwu, J., Fernandez, N. P., & Martin, C. (2013). HPV awareness and vaccine acceptability in Hispanic women living along the US-Mexico border. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 16(3), 540-545.

Introduction

The majority of the medical community has accepted the concept of vaccination as an effective tool in combating and controlling diseases. After the creation of the first vaccine by Edward Jenner in 1796, the world was made safer from many dangerous diseases, such as smallpox, poliomyelitis, malaria, and others (Cortes-Penfield, 2014). Yearly vaccinations are considered an effective way of controlling the outbreaks of many viral and infectious diseases, such as influenza. It is treatable, but a potentially dangerous disease as it is the number one cause of pneumonia. It is particularly threatening in older patients and young children.

Regular vaccines are used to immunize patients and prepare their systems against new stems of the virus. The effectiveness of this method is supported by numerous tests and scientific findings. However, due to the highly adaptive nature of influenza, no vaccine is perfect. Imperfections are associated with the perceived lack of effectiveness and various side effects associated with the treatment. This raises the question of whether or not immunization should be mandatory for healthcare professionals. The purpose of this paper is to examine the arguments and rhetoric devices used by both sides of the argument.

Summary of the Situation

As it stands, immunization against major diseases is mandatory for the majority of healthcare workers operating in the US. However, the debate regarding mandatory yearly immunizations against the flu is still ongoing. Right now, in most states, healthcare worker immunization is strictly voluntary, which results in less than 50% of doctors being immunized every year (Cortes-Penfield, 2014). The arguments are based on several important parameters, such as the effectiveness of the intervention, financial interest, side-effects, international practices, matters of personal freedom, and ethical concerns regarding the Hippocratic Oath. Although the majority of the populace, as well as leading healthcare organizations, seem to be in favor of mandatory vaccination, voices of concern are loud enough to slow down the initiative.

Argumentation

Both sides present various claims and arguments in order to support their views. The supporters of vaccination typically rely on scientific evidence from numerous researches and various controlled trials, as well as immunization practices in other countries. Cortes-Penfield (2014) supports the introduction of mandatory immunization as a new standard of care due to influenza and nosocomial infections, causing some of the highest amounts of morbidity during a season. In a hospital setting, healthcare workers are the ones most likely to contract influenza and spread it across the hospital, unless properly immunized. They use this logic in order to support the necessity of vaccination, as the Hippocratic Oath states that a physician is expected to do no harm (Cortes-Penfield, 2014).

The opponents of vaccination have some arguments against the procedure as well. Namely, they cite several researches that indicate yearly vaccination being inefficient at decreasing the number of registered influenza cases (Treanor, 2017), as well as making a popular argument that vaccination efforts, in general, are a hoax created by pharmaceutical companies (Cortes-Penfield, 2014). Other arguments are made for the dangers of the vaccines to newborns and elderly persons. However, those claims are largely unfounded, as the incidence of vaccine-related adverse reactions is rare and, in most cases, manageable (Cortes-Penfield, 2014).

Rhetorical Devices Used in the Argument

As both parties typically argue the effectiveness of vaccination rather than the morality of forcing physicians to undergo mandatory vaccination, the majority of the arguments that do not devolve into flinging insults utilize two rhetorical devices, namely the appeal to authority and the appeal to logic. The appeal to authority is used by both parties, which quote academic research journals in order to support their views. As academic research is considered the highest-rated evidence, it is typically used as a basis for the strongest arguments. The appeal to logic, on the other hand, is used to support arguments that are not reinforced by the academic literature. For example, the opponents of vaccination for doctors use logical constructs to convince their opponents that vaccination is a hoax invented by pharmaceutical companies. The proponents of vaccination use logical constructs to debunk said argument, pointing out the implausibility of it happening (Cortes-Penfield, 2014).

Interested Sides in the Public Debate

There are three interested parties in this debate – doctors, pharmacists, and patients. Doctors are interested in promoting patient safety. The majority of them are pro-mandatory vaccination and typically serve as experts in the public media. Pharmacists are also interested in promoting mandatory vaccinations, as it means steady contracts of vaccines. However, some pharmaceutical companies, namely those that produce treatments against influenza and other nosocomial infections, may feel disadvantaged by the reduced demand for their products as the result of effective vaccinations (Cortes-Penfield, 2014). The patients are namely interested in their wellbeing but lack the expertise to determine which side of the argument has more weight to it.

Cultural and Personal Biases

Cultural and personal biases have a significant influence on the argument. Some doctors oppose vaccination due to their religious beliefs. This is true for certain Muslim and Christian branches of faith and is a common trend in various sects and cults. Personal biases include suspicion towards official medical authorities, large corporations, the government, as well as distrust towards sources not backed by scientific evidence. Confirmation bias is one of the largest obstacles in media discourse, as both sides are capable of finding evidence that supports their claims without investigating the facts stating the contrary (Ekholm & Ford, 2015).

Logical Fallacies

When the discourse is not held in an academic manner, all kinds of argumentation fallacies are being used. The most frequently used one is argumentum ad hominem. Instead of addressing the points directly, the argument usually starts by belittling other peoples’ intelligence with the aim of reducing the credibility of their claims by attacking the person. Straw man arguments and “any sane man” kind of logical fallacies are also used in order to find rapport with the audience (Ekholm & Ford, 2015). The first ones are those arguments that develop the illusion of defeated position since the idea that is refuted is developed on the spot but not actually presented by the opponent. The second ones are those arguments that occur when the opponent’s sanity is questioned instead of the very claim. In addition to that, sane people can emphasize their madness to avoid the outcomes of the argument if they fail to prove their point of view. These fallacies are typically used in media and the press, which are not engaged in any academic discourses and are instead trying to sway the masses to their side through any means necessary.

Overall Strengths of the Arguments

Both sides of the argument provide academic resources in order to support their claims. While that is the case, the evidence supporting mandatory vaccination in healthcare workers has significantly more sources backing it up, while the evidence to the contrary is rare and, in most cases, addresses the frequency of vaccination rather than its necessity at large. Still, the presence of contradicting evidence indicates that drawbacks to vaccination do exist. A critical thinker should examine not only the presence of the evidence but also the strengths of the researches providing support to either argument. Some of the results may be subjected to criticism based on the methodology, data collection, evaluation, and conclusions.

References

Cortes-Penfield, N. (2014). Mandatory influenza vaccination for health care workers as the new standard of care: A matter of patient safety and nonmaleficent practice. American Journal of Public Health, 104(11), 2060-2065.

Ekholm, E. M & Ford, D. J. (2015). Rhetorical strategies implemented by the American medical association to identify roles within the interprofessional healthcare team. The Journal of BSN Honors Research, 8(1), 32-72.

Treanor, J. (2017). Flu vaccine – Too much of a good thing? The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 215(7), 1017-1019.

xChildhood immunization is an evidence-based practice implemented to control specific diseases and reduce outbreaks that can have far-reaching impacts on young individuals. In the United States, there are various programs and policies put in place to ensure that children below the age of 18 receive timely vaccines and social support. Unfortunately, certain issues and gaps affect the availability of such medical services to different individuals in this country. The purpose of this research paper is to discuss the disparities in immunization as a major social challenge impacting families and children in the United States.

Problem Identification and Statistics

The provision of vaccination is a powerful initiative that many countries consider to improve the health outcomes of children and ensure that they record positive health outcomes. This practice reduces the possibility of disease outbreaks in both the developed and developing nations. Unfortunately, current statistics reveal that not all children in this country have access to timely and appropriate immunizations. This means that individuals who do not have access to such services are usually at risk of developing various medical complications or illnesses (Hermann, Featherstone, Russell, & MacDonald, 2019). These are various attributes that trigger this problem, such as ineffective welfare programs and disparities in healthcare.

Many parents and guardians are encouraged to ensure that their children receive immunizations for various diseases before attaining the age of 35 months. A study by Hill, Elam-Evans, Yankey, Singleton, & King (2017) revealed that the national average for childhood immunization was around 90 percent for poliovirus in children. Similarly, Olive, Hotez, Damania, and Nolan (2018) observed that 91.9 percent of all-American children received timely vaccines for various conditions, including mumps, measles, varicella, and rubella. Additionally, the coverage for African American and Latino children below 40 months were lower than the national average at 87 and 88 percent respectively (Hill et al., 2017). Individuals under Child Welfare programs were also impacted negatively by this social health problem. Despite these differences and inequalities, Olive et al. (2018) indicate that vaccination coverage and availability in this country has still remained quite high in urban areas and cities.

Although these statistics reveal that America has managed to record positive gains in its child welfare programs, there are still some gaps that make it impossible for a small percentage of young individuals to lead high-quality lives. Some conditions have not received the required attention when it comes to the question of vaccination, such as Hepatitis A and B and varicella (Hill et al., 2017). Other critical factors undermining the availability of immunizations among American children include insurance coverage, poverty levels, neighborhoods, parents’ education attainment, and child welfare programs.

Societal Values: Contributing Factors

The nature and complexity of this social problem reflect various values and norms in different American communities. For instance, some religious groups discourage their followers to avoid vaccines because they can have detrimental effects are inappropriate with accordance to the promoted beliefs. Olive et al. (2018) use the example of disease outbreaks and deformities to explain why many parents ensure that their children do not receive any vaccine. On the other hand, the value of health and peace has emerged to encourage more members of society to select various immunizations in order to overcome the challenges associated with various diseases. Clinical officers, community health nurses, and social workers consider the concepts of influence and enlightenment to guide and encourage more people to have their children immunized. Such values explain why some American children lack access to timely vaccinations.

There are specific factors that have contributed to this social problem. Firstly, many stakeholders continue to present their views regarding the potential side effects associated with various vaccines. This is the case since media outlets have in the past reported various cases of disabilities and mental illnesses associated with various immunizations. This reason explains why many parents tend to ask numerous questions regarding the safety of various vaccines before accepting them (Immunization State Action, 2018). Secondly, some people tend to argue that their children should not be forced to get numerous injections since they might be harmful.

Thirdly, some religious grounds or faiths discourage their followers from engaging in such medical practices. This means that such individuals will argue that they are unsafe. Fourthly, the absence of adequate resources and effective healthcare systems make it impossible for many children to receive appropriate vaccinations. Fifthly, the lack of knowledge and inability to reserve appointments explain many children fail to receive the intended immunizations (Hermann et al., 2019). Poverty and the absence of insurance coverage reduce the number of young individuals who have access to various vaccines.

The government’s inability to resolve this problem has not benefited many groups or populations. This is true since the health challenge affects children from all racial backgrounds, thereby making it impossible for them to record positive medical outcomes. However, Olive et al. (2018) indicate that some medical professionals usually capitalize on this gap to provide costly immunizations to more children in rural or underserved regions. An evidence-based model is, therefore, needed to address this predicament and maximize the percentage of children who have access to timely and appropriate vaccines.

Historical Analysis and Laws

The issue of child immunization in the United States is something that many stakeholders, health professionals, and policymakers have addressed for many years. Before 1950, vaccinations targeting children below 15 years of age were simple and available to different citizen (Immunization State Action, 2018). However, only a small number of diseases were considered during the time, such as tetanus, diphtheria, and smallpox (Olive et al., 2018). The existing regulations required that all potential beneficiaries receive such services from private clinics or practitioners. The percentage of coverage during the 1950s remained quite low since all parents were required to pay for such services (Immunization State Action, 2018). The number of underage individuals managed to get free vaccines from local medical institutions.

In 1955, the government decided to introduce the polio vaccine (IPV). This move was aimed at addressing the challenges associated with this condition and ensuring that more American children recorded positive health outcomes (Immunization State Action, 2018). The government presented adequate funds to ensure that all states supported local agencies and institutors to administer IPV to the greatest number of children. Section 317 emerged in the 1960s to support the provision of immunizations to different individuals (Ventola, 2016). By 1980, half of the country’s children were able to receive immunization from private providers while the remaining percentage accessed them from public hospitals (Ventola, 2016). The increasing costs associated with such services in 1990 made it impossible for many children to record positive health results. From this period, American states went further to implement new laws and policies to ensure that all children joining various schools had received appropriate immunizations. This was catalyzed by the measles outbreak recorded between 1989 and 1991 (Ventola, 2016). The passage of the Vaccines for Children Act (VFC) would ensure that children had access to such services.

Currently, America lacks federal laws requiring children to receive mandatory vaccines. However, all states have presented diverse policies that target children in different public learning institutions as of July 2018 (Immunization State Action, 2018). This means that all learners below the age of 16 receive timely vaccines for these conditions: polio, measles, pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus (Immunization State Action, 2018). Some states do not have mandatory immunization laws for hepatitis B and rubella. Additionally, several programs have emerged in an attempt to increase the percentage of children who have access to immunizations in this country. The VFC has remained the main national law that ensures that more communities in the United States get the right immunizations in a timely manner (Immunization State Action, 2018). This imitative has delivered positive results by minimizing disparities in this country. However, maximum coverage or access to vaccination services is yet to be realized.

Personal Position

From the above discussion, it is evident that most of the recent policies and laws have managed to address the immunization problem in the United States. From the 1950s to the 1980s, many children were unable to receive high-quality and timely immunizations due to the absence of supportive systems and programs (Hill et al., 2017). These gaps played a role in the outbreak recorded in 1989 (Hill et al., 2017). This issue forced states and the federal government to propose new legislation to ensure that all children joining public schools had access to the required vaccines. These developments and gains explain why around 90 percent of this country’s children receive timely vaccines for major illnesses or diseases (Hill et al., 2017). My personal stand on some of these laws is that they are effective and have continued to deliver positive results.

However, the most important thing is making sure that no child dies or develops deformity due to an illness that could have been prevented through effective immunization. This gap explains why the latest laws are incapable of having a positive impact on child welfare. This country will achieve such a goal if it considers the current challenges that make it impossible for different children to get adequate and timely immunizations in their respective communities (Ventola, 2016). These issues call for superior programs and initiatives that can encourage different stakeholders to meet the health needs of the greatest percentage of American children.

Although the VFC has been in effect for a few decades, it has managed to address the complexity and nature of this childhood problem. This is true since stakeholders consider most of the common diseases affecting the global population when developing the most appropriate immunization guidelines (Olive et al., 2018). Similarly, all states have managed to propose and implement new laws in accordance with the VFC to reduce disparities and ensure that more underage individuals are capable of overcoming the predicaments associated with various illnesses.

Despite such gains, there is overwhelming evidence to support the unique gaps and differences that exist in this country. For instance, around 10 percent of American children have been unable to receive vaccines for most of the targeted illnesses (Hermann et al., 2019). Such individuals remain at risk for developing such disease and recording the complications associated with them. This gap means that the entire population is exposed to the dangers of different conditions. With such issues, chances are high that America might not address the targeted illnesses and support the health needs of its citizens.

Effectiveness of Current Policies and Recommendations

The current statistics reveal that the United States has managed to record positive results in the area of childhood immunization. This achievement has been possible due to the presence of effective laws and policies that are implemented to increase the percentage of citizens who have access to timely immunizations. This is the case since many parents and guardians in urban areas and rural areas can afford immunization services in this country (Hill et al., 2017). However, a new model or policy will be essential to maximize coverage to over 99 percent. This objective will be essential since many people in child welfare organizations and those living in poverty find it hard to get timely immunizations. The presentation of superior laws or programs will mitigate this challenge and empower more individuals in different parts of the country.

My proposal is for the government to consider new additions to the current procedures and policies. The outstanding option is to expand all programs implemented to provide vaccines to different children. Hermann et al. (2019) argue that the country can identify evidence-based measures to ensure that all children in private learning instructions have access to vaccines. Another consideration is strengthening the current strategies by engaging individuals from specific religious groups that do not embrace such immunizations. Similarly, new campaigns and training sessions can be essential and capable of educating and encouraging more American citizens to appreciate the importance of vaccines and how they can transform the experiences of all children.

These suggestions are capable of impacting different parts of society and addressing existing issues. For example, the introduction of educational programs can empower more people to appreciate other evidence-based practices, such as washing hands with soap and reporting disease outbreaks. Child welfare workers will also be in a position to deliver their services in a timely manner and more efficiently. Their activities will be simplified and eventually ensure that this country’s health sector records positive gains. The government will not have to stretch its budgetary allocations for health in the future since these suggestions will reduce disease outbreaks and maximize the experiences of more citizens (Ventola, 2016). The projected achievements and gains explain why the government should consider the current state of immunizations and implement the outlined recommendations. The ultimate objective is to ensure that more children receive the right immunizations and eventually pursue their unique aims in life.

Conclusion

The completed research study has revealed that America has some challenges in the fields of health care and social services. Although the findings have indicated that many children can access vaccines for different diseases, some disparities still exist that make it impossible for the targeted beneficiaries to record positive health outcomes. Most of the current state laws encourage parents to support the provision of such services to their children. The paper has gone further to identify evidence-based recommendations that the government should implement to minimize the outlined gaps and make it possible for the greatest number of young individuals in this country to achieve their potential.

References

Hermann, J. S., Featherstone, R. M., Russell, M. L., & MacDonald, S. E. (2019). Immunization coverage of children in care of the child welfare system in high-income countries: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(2), e55-e63. Web.

Hill, H. A., Elam-Evans, L. D., Yankey, D., Singleton, J. A., & King, Y. (2017). Vaccination coverage among children aged 19–35 months – United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(43), 1171-1177. Web.

Immunization State Action. (2018). State information. Web.

Olive, J. K., Hotez, P. J., Damania, A., & Nolan, M. S. (2018). The state of the antivaccine movement in the United States: A focused examination of nonmedical exemptions in states and counties. PLOS Medicine, 15(7), e1002616. Web.

Ventola, C. L. (2016). Immunization in the United States: Recommendations, barriers, and measures to improve compliance. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 41(7), 426-436.

Introduction

Governments implement and pursue evidence-based policies and laws that can protect their citizens and prolong their life expectancies. In many countries, people can choose specific vaccinations available within their public health networks or systems. In others, immunizations against specific diseases and conditions tend to be mandatory. In the United States, there are no federal requirements or laws compelling citizens to receive mandatory vaccines. In many regions, vaccines have continued to eliminate or minimize cases of various communicable diseases. Additionally, immunizations have protected many people against dangerous illnesses for many decades. In the recent past, numerous anti-vaccination campaigns have emerged in different parts of the world. Such developments have continued to spark concern and controversy within the fields of medical safety and public health. This paper gives evidence-based arguments and views to explain why there is a need for mandated vaccination policies in the United States.

Technical Aspect

The unique benefits of vaccines are undisputable since they protect individuals and entire populations, thereby reducing the chances of disease outbreaks in the targeted regions or nations. Hendrix, Sturm, Zimet, and Meslin (2016) support this argument by indicating that the scientific practice delivers herd immunity. This means that all beneficiaries will have improved immune systems that can recognize and fight disease-causing pathogens. Many states require that all school-going children receive timely vaccines. The introduction of such policies will also ensure that all healthcare professionals have specific immunizations in an attempt to protect more patients.

This is also appropriate for military personnel to avoid the transmission of various diseases from one place to another. While the benefits of vaccines are documented in many publications and works, some people have offered contradictory opinions. Additionally, many employers require their healthcare workers to have immunizations. For instance, some have outlined their philosophical notions and religious views to challenge the purpose and nature of immunizations. These issues explain why this topic remains controversial in the United States and across the world (Born, Ikura, & Laupacis, 2015). Those who support the importance of mandatory vaccination policies should consider all technical aspects in order to present evidence-based insights that can eventually transform or improve public health.

Public Policy

Arguments

Timely vaccinations are essential since they protect children and adults from various life-threatening diseases. Although some parents and guardians might be convinced that they have the right to reject such vaccinations, the final outcome is that most of the affected children will be unable to lead healthy lives. Hendrix et al. (2016) indicate that vaccinations reduce children’s risk of new infections or illnesses. This is true since the compounds introduced in their bodies will boost their natural defense mechanisms, thereby developing immunity against the targeted disease. Newborn babies who receive timely immunizations will have immunity against conditions that might threaten their lives. Weithorn and Reiss (2018) go further to indicate that vaccines will not overload a person’s immune system. The Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) also recommends that children and infants should receive vaccinations until they attain the age of six years (“Making the vaccine,” n.d.). Such beneficiaries will record positive health outcomes.

Different American states have implemented specific laws that require learning institutions to ensure that enrollees get vaccinated. The same principle is applicable to other settings and populations in this country. Similarly, healthcare facilities in the United States currently compel all workers to get immunizations for certain illnesses in an effort to reduce the cases of preventable diseases (Weithorn & Reiss, 2018). These attributes show that vaccines are essential since many healthcare facilities are sources of different diseases that can result in death (Shefer et al., 2006). Learning institutions and hospitals that consider such requirements record reduced cases of vaccine-preventable conditions.

Another argument to support the introduction of mandated vaccination policies is that most of the initiatives and strides made so far in public health have not addressed the problem infectious diseases pose to human beings today. For instance, communicable diseases continue to threaten the operations and capacities of military groups and other disciplined forces (Weithorn & Reiss, 2018). With this kind of knowledge, the Department of Defense (DoD) provides 17 types of vaccines to soldiers depending on these aspects: the basis of military occupation, mission requirements, and location of the deployment (Born et al., 2015). This strategy is recommendable since military personnel tends to train in crowded environments or settings. This is a clear indication that they are usually at a higher risk of contracting infectious diseases. Vaccinations are also essential since they protect soldiers who might get into contact with pathogens they might have no immunity or expertise to manage. Immunizations will also prepare soldiers and other people against biological agents or weaponized pathogens.

Counterarguments

Although many groups, associations, and medical professionals support the unique benefits of immunizations, the issue does not escape from a wide range of legal, ethical, and moral questions in different societies. This assertion explains why there are specific thinkers or individuals who will remain opposed to the idea of having mandatory vaccinations. Hussain, Ali, Ahmed, and Hussain (2018) argue that the decision infringes on autonomy for secular and religious reasons, thereby making it impossible for many people to lead contented lives. Another observation is that current requirements force healthcare professionals to immunize their patients or those at risk of specific conditions without getting their informed consent (Born et al., 2015). This approach is against the principles of non-maleficence and justice that all practitioners must uphold. All medical professionals should never harm members of society (Hussain et al., 2018). Finally, many analysts, researchers, and medical practitioners have argued that vaccines can cause more harm than good to the integrity of a person’s body. This happens to be the case since vaccines are foreign bodies that might have negative effects on a person’s future health experiences or outcomes.

Personal Opinion and Conclusion

The above arguments and counterarguments have revealed that the issue of vaccination will always remain argumentative. This is true since there are some quarters that will always be in favor of the practice while others will be against it. This means that there is a need for all stakeholders and policymakers to balance the risks to the public versus the health gains of one individual or a small number of people. They can also go further to propose superior strategies for meeting all people’s health demands while at the same time supporting the idea of patient autonomy. With such insights, my personal opinion is that the benefits of vaccinations for adults in different working environments and children outweigh the rights that might occur when the US government implements such policies. This understanding explains why it can be appropriate for the country to introduce mandated vaccinations to control diseases that might result in negative public medical gains.

References

Born, K., Ikura, S., & Laupacis, A. (2015). The evidence, ethics, and politics of mandatory health care worker vaccination. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 20(1), 1-3. Web.

Hendrix, K. S., Sturm, L. A., Zimet, G. D., & Meslin, E. R. (2016). Ethics and childhood vaccination policy in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2), 263-278. Web.

Hussain, A., Ali, S., Ahmed, M., & Hussain, S. (2018). The anti-vaccination movement: A regression in modern medicine. Cureus, 10(7): e2919. Web.

Making the vaccine decision. (n.d.). Web.

Shefer, A., Lindley, M. C., Horlick, G., Clemens, M., Shaw, F., & Strikas, R. (2006). Assessing state immunization requirements for healthcare workers and patients. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163(Suppl. 11), S134-S134. Web.

Weithorn, L. A., & Reiss, D. R. (2018). Legal approaches to promoting parental compliance with childhood immunization recommendations. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 14(7), 1610-1617. Web.

Introduction

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is recommended for children to receive 29 doses of 9 vaccines before they turn six years old (ProCon, n.d.). Vaccines are meant to protect against deadly and infectious diseases that have historically caused public health concerns, which is why many state laws and organizations require them. A group of concerned citizens exists that stands against mandatory vaccination, arguing that vaccines may cause negative side effects, contain toxic substances and that governments should not interfere in the medical choices of private citizens.

Main body

The negative side effects of vaccines are the most popular and strongest argument of opponents to childhood immunization. Vaccines inherently carry a risk of potential side effects ranging from allergic reactions to major health complications. Despite strict monitoring, side effects will be present for any type of vaccine as it is technically a medication. The reactions and side-effects are relatively random and unpredictable, unique for each child. Serious complications can reach the prevalence of 1 in 100 persons for some vaccines (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018).

There is strong evidence that demonstrates an association between the MMR vaccines and febrile seizures as well as the varicella vaccine causing complications in immunodeficient children. Moderate evidence associates the rotavirus vaccines with intussusception (Maglione et al., 2014). This research creates concern about immunization safety and risk of use since little to no precautions are taken to prevent adverse events in children with certain complications resulting in fatal outcomes.

A vaccine has many components, some of which are potentially toxic. Besides the antigens of the infection, ingredients such as adjuvants, antibiotics, and preservatives are added for purposes of immune response and preventing contamination. However, some of the elements are concerning and can have health impacts for children in large enough amounts. For example, thimerosal (ethylmercury), although naturally occurring, is harmful in large amounts.

In the past, children receiving several doses of vaccines exceeded the recommended limit by EPA standards. Formaldehyde and aluminum are present in small amounts as well, although medically within minimal limits for children. Meanwhile, substances such as antibiotics or monosodium glutamate have been associated with short-term allergic reactions (Public Health, 2018). Although government agencies argue that the amounts of substances are minimal and pose no risk, medical professionals and scientists have expressed concern on the matter. Another aspect is that information on the vaccine or its origins is rarely provided to the public, parents, or even physicians administering immunizations.

Mandatory immunization for kids in some states and organizations or schools requiring it for participation in others has sparked an intense public debate on the role of choice in vaccination. Opponents to immunization, particularly when coercive policies are implemented, argue that it defies fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to self-determination and protection of bodily integrity. Forcing it is technically a violation of human rights.

For children, who are bound by parental decision-making, at least until the age of maturity, this principle applies as well, since parents make the choice they feel is right for their family. The right to oppose and choose is a vital right for freedom of thought, speech, and autonomy that the government should not be involved in. Furthermore, mandatory vaccination violates the medical principle of informed consent (Fisher, 2014). Considering that there is a proven risk to vaccines and it is a medical procedure, citizens should be protected.

Conclusion

Immunizations for kids are high-risk medical procedures that may result in severe and fatal complications as research data suggests. Vaccines are potentially composed of toxic or synthetic elements which may lead to long-term health problems. Finally, from an ethical and political perspective, in a Democratic country such as the United States, the government should not interfere in the medical decisions of private citizens as it is a violation of constitutional rights.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Possible side-effects from vaccines. Web.

Fisher, B. L. (2014). Vaccination: Defending your right to know and freedom to choose. Web.

Maglione, M. A., Das, L., Raaen, L., Smith, A., Chari, R., Newberry, S.,… Gidengil, C. (2014). Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization of us children: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 134(2), 325-337. Web.

ProCon. (n.d.). Should any vaccines be required for children? Web.

Public Health. (2018). What goes into a vaccine? Web.

The research conducted by Ward (2014) evaluated the total impacts and influences of externalities in respect to the vaccination of influenza as it developed its spread to the patients targeted. Ward employed a triple-difference design while assessing a vaccination program in Ontario and the improvements perceived from it for several years. The research study brought the essence of providing the higher vaccination as an attribute facilitating the improvement of health status. It was noted that the expansion of the vaccination effects was beneficial to the regions. The benefits included lowering of an initial standard of disease prevalence where the older adults accrue many advantages. In perspective, this essay criticizes the research and presentation made by Ward through assessing various aspect of his presentation.

The researcher introduces by laying out the basic purpose of performing his study. The evaluation of this introduction dictates that there are various reasons why the research is essential. For instance, it has been stated that assessing the broad-based program is the sole purpose of identifying the underlying benefits. In fact, the assessment proceeds to develop a strategic reasoning criterion that seasonal epidemics demand prevention which in turn prevents cure. It does not only develop arguments about the policies applied in the approval and dissemination of the vaccines, but also provides an intricate analysis of prevailing health effects of the disease. The introductory section argues that children are threatened significantly by the disease if appropriate and reliable vaccines do not work properly (Fiore, 2012). In this section, the information has been presented from such reputable and peer reviewed sources as the World Health Organization. The researcher identifies the risky situation in cases where early-life infections lead to disabilities. In consideration of accuracy and generalization of the study, Ward makes his research analysis reliant on the quality of the subject vaccines. Furthermore, the supervision of survey data is constructed in a platform where hospital admissions and failure to attend employment duties are evaluated for a period of eleven years.

Although the research does not indicate the particulate data set, collection methods and their reliabilities, it is apparent that some results portray fundamental insight for future studies. The research results inform that there was a 48% decrease in the admission of pneumonia patient, 14% reduction in absenteeism, and decrease in death tolls related to the disease by 0.009%. However, it is not apparent that the randomization of the research can facilitate generalization of the results. Essentially, handling the research from the UIIC region may exhibit some unique characteristics not found within other regions across the globe.

The background information presents a case that demands professional attention. The researcher argues that the prevailing issues where the prevalence and effects of the influenza virus has been availed on a worldwide base. It evaluates the current efficacy of the vaccine, its developments, and other improvements noted on the virus. This section points out such lethal strains of the virus as H3N2 and H1N1. The background has been reviewed throughout the globe where nations or states like Canada and the USA are used (Demicheli, 2001). He reviews the reliable researches on the effectiveness of the vaccine including the assessment aimed at identifying the virus. The identification has been presented using 3 equations determining the effects of vaccination to a population.

The researcher fails to present all the data used for the analysis in ways that are easily assessable. For instance, the use of graph should be frequent in order to clarify the identification of the effects at a glance. For instance, a graph has been presented on the vaccination rates from the year 1995 to 2006. Even though this graph relays the final meaning of the assessment, it is a complex analysis which can be effective if presented as yearly data. It has been summarized to a level that makes it hard to retrieve information. If the graph was presented as monthly analysis, there would be sufficient information that can be relied upon when making the arguments.

In another consideration, Ward developed a set of analysis for the non-UIIC patients in order to bring the broad picture of the evaluation together. This diversity of information has also been attributed the age-effects evaluation. In fact, the researcher proceeds to collect surveillance information from other reputable sources like the Canadian Communicable Disease Report (CCDR) and Center for Disease Control (CDC). The sufficiency of this data allows Ward to develop analysis to the weekly basis for the 11 years. In doing this, he selects week 35 of each year and provides an average for the effects of vaccination. Probably, a highly reliable analysis can consider evaluating many weeks within one year instead of ignoring the criticality of sample size and associated errors. The health outcome data was retrieved from the Hospital Morbidity Database (HMDB) occasioned by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (Ward, 2010). In all these analyses, however, the research is conscious about the standards errors.

The research does not manage to pull out fundamental data on the probability of hospital admission in order to calculate the advantages of averted infections. In this respect, Ward develops an alternative and less reliable approach by making assumption that illness-conditional rate of admissions do not affect the matching of the vaccine. The inferred reduction in infection and changes on the people who are vaccinated may be compared. The final evaluation dictates that decreasing rate of disease prevalence has effects on both the vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The researcher argues that communicable diseases tend to amplify when the number of infected people increases. This factor implies that when the number of infected people lowers, a subsequent decrease in the disease prevalence becomes practical. In fact, researchers have supported the argument that an infected person within a large population of uninfected people can infect 1.44 individuals before treatment commences (Hethcote, 2000; Hedrich, 2010). Such prevalence does not pose a critical threat since it can be handled stringently.

Eventually, Ward applies a multidimensional perspective which incorporated many forms of logical ideologies. He evaluates the cost of the program and the associated benefits in order to check the viability of the whole strategic plan against influenza virus. He concludes by restating such aspects as the effects of unaccounted spillover in the vaccination of influenza. In this light, the research recommends the setting of regulations and policies in order to immunize the entire population with insignificant risks of spill over. The research recognizes that there is a fundamental requirement to address and investigate this field often. If these issues are not addressed and investigated stringently, the globe may be faced by an unprecedented threat. It is, therefore, recommendable that government institutions create research facilities to develop sustainable solutions for all people.

References

Demicheli, V. (2001). Mass influenza vaccination in Ontario: Is it worthwhile? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 164 (1), 38-39.

Fiore, A. (2012). Influenza vaccination: Where do we stand? International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 6(3), 12-13.

Hedrich, A. (2010). International Vital Statistics. American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health, 9(36), 1123-1124.

Hethcote, H. (2000). The Mathematics of Infectious Diseases. SIAM Review, 42(4), 599-599.

Ward, C. (2014). Influenza Vaccination Campaigns: Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(1), 38-72.

As a healthcare worker what could be done to ensure that all parents are receiving notification of the vaccines, especially in rural areas?

Healthcare workers face many challenges in ensuring that parents receive notifications of vaccines, particularly in rural areas where methods of communication are poor. In Africa, requesting parents to take their children to healthcare centers for vaccinations requires mobilizing many stakeholders. For example, Ghana has successfully launched two vaccines that are intended to reduce the impacts of the high rates of mortality and morbidity associated with pneumonia and diarrhea (Logan, 2014). As a healthcare worker, one should identify places where parents can be found so that they can receive vaccination notifications. Some of these places are churches, homes, and urban centers. Thus, it would require the participation of community health volunteers, opinion leaders in society, religious leaders, and journalists, among others. In most cases, it would essential to utilize a van that is fitted with loudspeakers that would be instrumental in spreading vaccination news to many parents within a relatively short period (Logan, 2014).

Many parents have been shown to have fear concerning vaccinations on young children. However, a healthcare worker should convince such parents to have their children vaccinated so that they can have healthier lives in the future. One of the best ways to reduce fear in parents is to provide examples of how vaccines have helped to reduce mortality rates among children across the world. For example, one can use statistics as well as narrations from parents whose children have improved their healthcare outcomes as a result of vaccinations (UNICEF, 2014). Besides, a healthcare professional can explain to parents, who have fear, that the government cannot initiate vaccination programs that can harm its people. Thus, parents can be assured of safety vis-à-vis vaccinations on young children. This can lead to a remarkable increase in the number of children that are immunized. Already, there are success stories in some nations, such as Ghana and Chad (Logan, 2014; UNICEF, 2014).

In Africa, there exists a high level of suspicion about immunizations, what are the factors fueling the fear of immunization in Africa?

Although vaccines are aimed at improving the lives of young persons in Africa, many parents have expressed various reasons to justify their refusal to take their children to healthcare centers to be immunized. For example, some say that their children would be exposed to some medications that would result in irreversible side effects. One of the factors that are supporting the fear is rumors that are spread by various groups, such as churches and human rights activists. In this context, the groups discourage parents from having their children immunized on grounds that the government is keen on reducing the population by introducing irreversible side effects on kids.

Besides, there is a lack of massive educational programs that would educate stakeholders in the healthcare sector about the benefits of childhood immunizations. The government can ensure that people are taught about the merits and demerits of childhood immunizations so that they can make informed decisions. It is also important to note that many Africans are suspicious about immunizations for the reason that many vaccines are manufactured in the developed world. Thus, there is a high level of suspicion that the developed world is keen on harming the young African population by introducing vaccines. That notwithstanding, a holistic approach to healthcare can result in improved outcomes, which have been realized in some nations, such as Chad, in the recent past (WHO, 2014).

References

Logan, M. (2014). Ghana launches vaccines against pneumonia and diarrhoea, the country’s biggest child killers. Web.

UNICEF. (2014). UNICEF/WHO: New plan to address pneumonia and diarrhoea could save 2 million children a year. Web.

WHO. (2014). Chad: Health Profile. Web.

Sexually transmitted diseases (or STDs/STIs) have always been an issue of taking extra measures and regular checks, unfortunately, mostly on the part of women. Some STDs are easily treated and do not bring about long-term health problems, while others can end up causing intractable diseases. With the HPV virus belonging to the second group, it seems reasonable for the government to lobby for the vaccination to become mandatory for middle school girls to reduce the number of HPV-related precancers.

The fact that the US government is forming a pro-vaccination discourse is undeniable. The website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) includes dozens of pages dedicated to monitoring HPV-IMPACT on an annual basis, collecting demographic and clinical data on women with a high-grade cervical lesion (HPV-IMPACT, 2018). All these measures are conducted to estimate trends in cervical cancer screening and vaccine effectiveness. As HPV is the most common STI, the vast research on its prevention is not surprising.

For now, there is only one HPV vaccine that is available in the United States –Gardasil® 9. This vaccine went through clinical trials with 30,000 females and proved to be safe, aside from minor side effects. However, while CDC advocates that there is no evidence suggesting HPV vaccine negatively affects fertility, studies arguing that women who have received the HPV shot were less likely to conceive (DeLong G., 2018). For instance, 60% of women who haven’t received the shot were found to be pregnant at least once, whereas only 35% have ever been pregnant after getting vaccinated (DeLong G., 2018). Still, the issue remains multi-faceted, as there is also a problem of Child sexual abuse and rape, which is partly covered by the administration of the HPV vaccine (Standing orders for administering human papillomavirus vaccine to children and teens, 2019). Some teenagers are sexually active without parents’ concern, and this, too, contributes to the necessity of HPV vaccination to become mandatory.

All in all, vaccination almost always provides some side effects and possible health problems. However, in some situations, the consequences of not having an injection exceed the negative impact of having it. In the case of HPV, there are other facets of the problem, like violence and non-consensual sex. Therefore, vaccination remains the only way to prevent serious health problems for women in the future.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Human papillomavirus vaccine impact monitoring project (HPV-IMPACT). Web.

DeLong, G. (2018). A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25-29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 81(14), 661-674. Web.

Immunization Action Coalition. (2019). Standing orders for administering human papillomavirus vaccine to children and teens.Web.