Vaccines for children are a controversial issue in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) informs health practitioners to give twenty-nine doses of nine vaccines for children aged zero to five (1). All 50 states legalize immunization for kids getting into a public school (2). Conversely, the authorities of states have backing from the US federal law. Opponents argue children’s immune system can eradicate infections naturally and render immunization unnecessary. They also say injecting children with debatable vaccine ingredients may cause paralysis, seizures, and death. However, vaccines for kids have prevented many illnesses, such as rubella, smallpox, whooping cough, diphtheria, and polio (3). Vaccinations save the lives of millions of children, and adverse reactions to immunizations are rare. My position is vaccines for kids are a safe medication, and I recommend it as a significant health development.
Vaccines Cause Fatal Side Effects
Opponents argue all vaccines possess life-threatening and allergic issues to kids. The rotavirus immunization causes intussusception, a bowel blockage requiring hospitalization. Diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and MMR inoculations have side effects, including coma, long-term seizures, and reduced consciousness (1). Chickenpox injections exacerbate pneumonia symptoms in kids aged zero to six years. Similarly, flu serums are associated with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a condition where an individual’s immune system affects the peripheral nervous system (3). Vaccines bring about serious to fatal effects on children; therefore, the CDC should not recommend them.
Vaccines Have Harmful Ingredients
Furthermore, vaccines for kids’ antagonists fault them for having toxic compounds. Aluminum is present in inoculants, and an excess amount of the element causes neurological impairment. Formaldehyde is available in some vaccines, yet the component is cariogenic, leads to central nervous depression, and lowers cognitive functions (3). Glutaraldehyde, a dental and medical equipment disinfectant, is also notable in DTaP vaccinations. Children exposed to the compound are at risk of asthma and respiratory complications. Flu vaccines have cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTMB), which an antiseptic compound. CTMB risk factor for skin, respiratory, and eye irritations among vaccinated kids. Polio and DTaP serums contain 2-phenoxyethanol to act as an antibacterial compound. On the other hand, the component triggers headaches, kidney damage, convulsions, and cardiac failure. Flu shots contain yolk proteins harmful to children allergic to the egg proteins. Hepatitis B serums have yeast protein, which stimulates irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), asthma, stroke, and seizure (3). Vaccinations should not be mandatory because they insert potential pathogens and toxic ingredients into children’s blood systems.
Vaccine-Targeted Diseases are Harmless
Similarly, challengers claim there are no rationales to vaccinate children because most infections no longer exist. The CDC noted fifty-nine and nine death cases linked to diphtheria from 1980 to 2016 (3). Tetanus has caused less than 11 deaths per year between 1989 and 2014 (2). The CDC reported only 32 deaths associated with rubella from 1979 to 2016 (2). The United States declared it eradicated polio in 1979 (2). Other diseases immunization targets do cause serious harm to children (2). Chickenpox is a rash with blisters and lotions, acetaminophen and cool compresses can treat it. Measles is a rash-causing runny and fever, which requires adequate rest and fluids intake (1). Rubella is a virus triggering low shivering, and acetaminophen is a sufficient medication (3). Probiotics and hydration effectively handle rotavirus. Vaccines are unnecessary because alternative medical approaches to the targeted diseases are already available.
Vaccines Save Lives of Kids
However, my position is that vaccines are beneficial because they save children aged zero to six years old. Most childhood vaccinations are 90%-90% effective in disease prevention (3). Immunization saves 2.5 million kids from preventable illness per year, equating to 285 children protection per hour (1). The CDC estimated childhood vaccine injection stopped 419 million diseases, 26.8 million hospitalizations, and 936,000 premature death of kids born from 1992 to 2016 (3). Measles serums lowered deaths linked to the disease by 74% (3). Vaccines for kids are safe and acceptable health developments because they halt diseases, lower hospitalizations, and decrease premature deaths.
Vaccines Use Nontoxic Amount of Ingredients
I trust medical professionals use a low quantity of aluminum, formaldehyde, and thimerosal components on inoculants to avoid their harmful effects in large doses. Infant formulas and breast milk expose children to more aluminum than vaccines (3). The CDC removed thimerosal, a mercury component, to trace amounts in shots for children below six years old. Vaccine ingredients are safe because there are rare side effects on immunized kids (2). Severe allergic incidences occur in one per a million vaccinations. Combined measles, rubella, and mumps serums have caused no side effects since its inception in the mid-1940s (3). Scientific relationships between flu and asthma episodes or Bell’s palsy do not exist. Therefore, vaccinated children in communities help eradicate preventable diseases for the future generation. Women inoculated against illnesses, such as rubella, polio, and rotavirus, have reduced chances of passing the ailments to newborns.
Vaccines Have Eradicated or Lowered Cases of Preventable Diseases
I trust health professionals no longer vaccinate children against smallpox in the US because immunization led to its disappearance. The United States reported the last smallpox incidence in 1948 (3). Vaccines lowered 16 316 deaths associated with polio in the twentieth century to zero US cases in 2012 (3). Rubella killed 47 745 individuals per year, but vaccinations reduced the chances by 99% from 1987 to 2012 (3). Globally, vaccination programs declined polio occurrences from 350,000 to 500 cases between 1988 and 2014 (3). The paralytic polio form is not present in the US, but the virus is still evident in Pakistan and Afghanistan (1). A person can incubate the poliovirus for years with symptoms and accidentally infect an unimmunized child (1). Vaccines have played critical roles in eradicating preventable diseases among kids in the US. However, the medication is necessary to protect kids at risk of polio, rotavirus, and measles from developing nations.
Conclusion
Opponents and proponents of vaccines for kids may look conflicting, but they are both valid. Vaccination antagonists fault them because they have life-threatening allergen, contain harmful ingredients, and target relatively harmless diseases. However, I support vaccines for kids because they are effective in preventing infections. Potentially harmful components of inoculants, such as aluminum and formaldehyde, are in nontoxic amounts. I acknowledge vaccines as the safest medical products in the current generation. They are necessary for children since they exhibited limited allergic effects and triggers no respiratory or cardiac complications in kids. The controversial issues on vaccines for children arouse flaws and doubts about immunization ideas I previously believed. I see arguments against and for children immunization as non-adversarial. They help in the development of an extensive frame of reference and improved ideas about vaccinations for kids.
Sources
Elbow Peter, 2006, The believing game and how to make conflicting opinions more fruitful. Web.
Anders Hviid, 2019, Measles, mumps, rubella vaccination and autism: a nationwide cohort study. Web.
ProCon.org, 2020, Should any vaccines be required for children? Web.
Children, individuals with immune issues, and the ill.
Proportions vary depending on disease type.
In the discussion about immunization as an issue, it is important first to discuss herd immunity as a phenomenon implied to protect populations from infectious diseases.
As a result of immunization, herd immunity develops, with fewer people being infected.
Herd immunity is necessary for preventing the most vulnerable population groups from being infected. These include children who are too young to get vaccinated, individuals with immune diseases, as well as people that are currently ill and cannot get vaccinated.
Types of Immunity
Active Immunity:
Disease exposure triggers the immune system;
Antibodies are produced as a response to the disease;
Is long-lasting and can last an entire life.
Passive Immunity:
A person is given antibodies to a disease;
The immune system does not produce antibodies;
Antibody-containing products are used.
Immunity is differentiated into active and passive depending on how it developed in the beginning.
On the one hand, there is active immunity, which develops as a result of disease exposure triggering an immune response of the body. It can last a long time, including the entire lifespan of people.
On the other hand, there is passive immunity, which is a result of immunization (often short-term). The immune system in this case does not produce antibodies.
Effect of Vaccinations
Eradication of major infections (e.g., smallpox) (Greenwood, 2014);
A positive impact on productivity, overall health, and cognitive development;
Adaptation to modification of disease epidemiology;
Increase economic productivity;
Protection against diseases within herd immunity;
Strengthening of the immune system of people.
For public health, immunizations represent an effective tool for protecting the population from the adverse impact of preventable diseases. Their prevention leads to a positive impact on productivity, the overall health of the population, and the cognitive development of children.
Within the context of immunization as a real preventable measure, the latter creates a herd immunity environment through strengthening people’s immune system.
It should also be mentioned that there is a growing trend in opposing vaccinations in favor of natural treatments.
Worldwide effects
Addressing deaths due to infection epidemics;
Minimization of polio endemic in most countries (CDC, 2017);
Aversion of deaths in low-income regions;
Prevention of measles, yellow fever, rubella, hepatitis B, etc.;
The increased cost-effectiveness of healthcare;
The decreased occurrence of virus infections.
The global effect of immunizations has shown to be extremely positive. With the advancements in the testing and research of vaccines, the population has higher chances of being protecting itself from preventable diseases.
Such adverse illnesses such as measles, rubella, yellow fewer, hepatitis B, and others have decreased in occurrence with the administration of vaccinations.
In addition to the mentioned effects, vaccinations have brought increased cost effectiveness of healthcare. Instead of treating diseases, they are prevented, thus reducing their economic impact.
Vaccination Trends
Vaccinations increased the confidence in health care;
Direct correlations with GDP and education levels;
Socioeconomic stability leads to increased vaccination;
Polio epidemic (Pakistan and Afghanistan) driven by war;
Vaccine refusals by religious and anthroposophical groups;
Estimations of vaccine coverage are not always concrete;
Possible artificial increases to boost statistics.
The main trend in contemporary public health is associated with increasing the confidence of the population in that vaccinations will protect their children against infectious diseases.
It should be mentioned that the economic stability of the population increases the likelihood of it being vaccinated. This means that improving the economic well-being of some groups.
However, it should be mentioned that the reported statistics on vaccination administration may not always reflect the real picture.
Vaccination Myths
Vaccines contain harmful substances;
In children, vaccines cause autism and sudden infant death syndrome;
Vaccine-preventable diseases are part of growing up;
It is better to have diseases than to become immune to them;
Since other children are immune, there is no need to vaccinate;
A disease can be caused by a vaccine.
The list of vaccination-related myths represents the fears that some people have when it comes to vaccinating their children. This presents some challenges for public health care.
These myths are especially important to understand because they represent the root of most people’s hesitations to vaccinate their children.
It is essential for healthcare providers to implement education interventions to develop their understanding that the positive effects of immunizations overweight the possible risks and side-effects.
Vaccination Myths Disproved
Any chemicals included in vaccines are in low doses;
Vaccines are safe, and reactions to them are minor long-term (AAAAI, 2018);
In childhood, vaccine-preventable diseases can cause significant harm;
It is not better to have a disease because of complication risks;
Relying on herd immunity leads to the decreased resistance to disease;
Vaccines causing diseases are highly unlikely.
Addressing vaccination myths is necessary to ensure that the population develops a positive attitude to this effective prevention method.
It is important to understand that vaccines represent an effective means to reduce the transmission of diseases, disability, and the occurrence of infant mortality.
The list of counter-arguments to the myths is intended to inform the community that the advantages of vaccinations overweight the possible risks and short-term side effects.
Disease Prevented by Vaccinations
79% decline in deaths associated with measles;
Eradication of polio endemic (apart from Pakistan and Afghanistan);
23.3 million estimated deaths averted 2011-2020;
4.7 million Hepatitis B deaths prevented;
1.5 million Pneumococcus deaths prevented;
0.4 million Rubella deaths prevented (CDC, 2017);
0.8 million Rotavirus deaths averted.
The statistics reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the slide illustrate the effectiveness of vaccinations in preventing diseases that lead to deaths in the population.
Pakistan and Afghanistan remain the most problematic areas in terms of polio due to the continuous military instabilities.
Nevertheless, vaccines showed to be effective in reducing the adverse impact of measles, Hepatitis B, Rubella, Rotavirus, and Pneumococcus. It has been prognosed that vaccines will continue making a difference.
Pediatric Vaccination Schedule
Hepatitis B: birth, 1, 2, 6-15 months;
Rotavirus: 2, 4, 6 months;
Diphtheria: 2, 4, 6, 15 months;
Haemophilus influenza: 2, 4, 6, 12-15 months;
Hepatitis A: 12-15 months;
Varicella: 12-15 months;
Influenza: annual vaccinations;
Measles, mumps, and rubella: 12-15 months.
The recommended schedule for pediatric immunizations is intended to regulate the administration of the vaccines through the appropriate period of time.
The majority of vital immunizations occur in the first fifteen months of a child’s life, thus guaranteeing the protection of the organism against potentially harmful and dangerous infections.
Several doses (3-4) of vaccines for infectious diseases mentioned in the slide are spread apart between birth and fifteen months. Influenza vaccinations are recommended annually to sustain the organism’s resistance to them.
Legal Issues
Rejection of vaccines leads to legal issues in public health;
Mandatory vaccinations are intended to protect the population;
Health authorities can impose vaccinations to maintain health;
Controversies regarding the rejection are associated with religious ideologies;
Freedom of religion practice presents many challenging;
Enforcing vaccinations on the population may cause legal disputes;
Human rights issues should also be considered.
The most legal issues occurring in the context of vaccinations are associated with the population’s refusal to administer them.
Because of this, mandatory laws have been developed in the US to ensure that the population is protected against the most commonly transmitted viruses.
However, forcing people to agree to vaccinate themselves and their children may transform into a limitation of basic human rights to make their own decisions.
Cultural Considerations
Certain cultures and belief systems oppose vaccinations;
Some states allow a religious exemption to mandatory vaccinations;
Protest against vaccines that contain human tissue cells;
Infections can spread quickly through smaller groups (e.g., those attending the same church);
“Western plot” theories in which populations in Asia and Africa believe;
The polio vaccine has caused the most suspicion.
Some cultural groups may have a negative attitude toward immunizations due to the mistrust in their effectiveness as well as overall purpose.
Religious groups protest against the use of vaccines made with the help of human tissue cells. These groups consider the human body sacred and therefore unfit to be used for the purpose of immunization.
Some populations, especially in Africa and Asia, are opposed to vaccinations because of the fear of the Western world trying to control them.
Ethical Considerations
Research and testing: may require the participation of human subjects;
Importance of ensuring safety and efficacy of administered vaccines;
Obtaining informed consent to administering vaccinations;
Access to vaccinations is a socioeconomic issue;
High-earning individuals will have greater access to vaccinations;
Lacking infrastructure in poverty-stricken communities decreases the coverage of vaccinations.
Ethical considerations associated with vaccine administration fall into three categories: research and testing, informed consent, and access issues.
There is a problem of involving human subjects into research and testing because it can be potentially dangerous. Although, it is essential to ensuring that vaccines are safe and effective.
Informed consent is a problem if people disagree to get vaccinated. However, the most important ethical issue is concerned with access: immunizations are more likely to occur in economically stable populations.
References
AAAAI. (2018). Vaccines: The myths and the facts. Web.
CDC. (2017). Infographic: The global impact of vaccines in reducing vaccine-preventable disease morbidity and mortality. Web.
Greenwood, B. (2014). The contribution of vaccination to global health: Past, present and future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 369(1645), 20130433.
Recently, it is not easy to read in the media about anything other than the new coronavirus. The pandemic has rapidly and significantly changed the way people live, and the global economy will take a long time to recover from the effects of the crisis. The disease has dramatically affected the reality of all countries, including Israel. New quarantine rules, vaccinations, and changes in the celebration of events have already become commonplace for all residents.
The coronavirus pandemic is still strong in Israel, and no one knows how long it will last. As of June 17, 2021, 838 thousand cases of COVID-19 were recorded in Israel (Israel, 2021). Since June, almost all restrictions have ceased to apply in the country due to the low level of morbidity. Only the mandatory wearing of masks and restrictions on entry and exit remain in force.
Israel has resumed bilateral flights with all countries since the middle of March. Entry to Israel will only be permitted for people who have a negative PCR test result from 72 hours before leaving the country (Policy of entry into Israel, 2021). However, the resumption of international flights is not yet relevant to tourists. According to the Ministry of Tourism of Israel representative, the full opening of the borders to foreign tourists is unlikely to occur before July.
Israel has become a world leader in coronavirus vaccination. In January 2021, the country’s authorities introduced a “green pass” for those vaccinated or who have already recovered (Wilf-Miron et al., 2017). These documents are a permit to visit public places that cannot be entered without a pass. These passes are called an additional incentive for vaccination so that the authorities’ efforts to organize the campaign will not be in vain.
In Israel, the celebration of one of the most important days of the year is approaching. June 18 is considered the day of mourning in Jewish history. On this day, the First and Second Temples of Jerusalem were destroyed. In memory of these events, it was decided to make it the day of fasting. On this day, people cannot eat, drink, or wear leather shoes.
The pandemic has hard hit Israel: authorities have imposed lockdowns three times to contain the virus. Various restrictions were introduced, the wearing of masks became a habit for people, public events were reduced to a minimum. However, these effective measures have helped Israel to overcome the most difficult periods of the pandemic. Now the country occupies one of the top places in the number of vaccinated citizens and has a massive chance of getting rid of the disease quickly.
People are refusing to get vaccinated and vaccinate their children with increasing frequency, which is related to many factors. The World Health Organization (WHO) has changed its guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination (WHO, 2021). If earlier it opposed vaccinations for children, then in the new version of the document, the organization advises for vaccinating children, but after the vaccine is received by risk groups, including the elderly, health workers, and people with chronic diseases. For children over 12 years of age, WHO recommends the use of the Pfizer / BionTech vaccine (WHO, 2021). Children and adolescents tend to be milder than adults, so unless they are in a group with a higher risk of severe COVID-19. They need to be vaccinated less urgently than the elderly, people with chronic diseases, and medical workers. Hence, children should be vaccinated as well, as long as appropriate health organizations recommend doing so and assure the safety of the vaccination.
Although, in general, the experience of past epidemics suggests that mandatory vaccination can be an effective means of combating the coronavirus pandemic, there are too many additional uncertainties to state this for sure – or even make sufficiently confident predictions. The demand of the US authorities in 1905 for compulsory vaccination was recognized as legal and fair since a person’s refusal to vaccinate puts at risk not only himself but also those around him. Thus, mass vaccination benefits society and the court ruled that in the name of the common good, the freedom of any person can be subjected to all sorts of restrictions (Opel et al., 2021). As the proportion of the vaccinated population grew, outbreaks of dangerous diseases there gradually faded away – until, at some point, the pendulum of history swung in the opposite direction. People who had never seen a single real epidemic in their lives began to fear the side effects of vaccines more than the diseases themselves from which they protect. Hence, mandatory vaccination of children should be implemented worldwide only with strong evidence that the vaccine has no harm.
References
Opel, D. J., Diekema, D. S., & Ross, L. F. (2021). Should we mandate a COVID-19 vaccine for children?. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(2), 125-126.
This article deals with the incidence of influenza among people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). Cuypers et al. (2020) have implemented a historical cohort study exploring mortality rates in the entire Dutch population and the target group in 2017-2018. The participants with IDs were entitled to residential mental health facilities (based on the national database). The researchers have found that the mortality rate in the target population was three times higher than that among the general population (15.2% in ID people and 5.4% in the general population). Another finding is related to the correlation between age and the mortality as mortality rate among older adults increased. Younger people with IDs who also had endocrine issues were also vulnerable. The researchers have concluded that the mortality rate among people with mental health issues is disproportionately distributed, which may need the corresponding response.
This source is valuable for the present research as it sheds light on an important aspect of the impact of influenza on public health with a focus on a particular population. Notably, the article is important as valuable insights are provided on mortality in a group that is rather numerous and can be a source of infection spread. The findings can help in developing proper interventions for people with mental health issues during the COVID pandemic.
Karlsson, E. A., Mook, P. A. N., Vandemaele, K., Fitzner, J., Hammond, A., Cozza, V., Wenqing Zhang, & Moen, A. (2021). Review of global influenza circulation, late 2019 to 2020, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on influenza circulation. Weekly Epidemiological Record, 96(25), 241–264.
The present article is a relevant source for the study on influenza as it contains quantitative data related to influenza epidemics on a global scale. This report provides information on the chronological, virological, and epidemiological peculiarities of the influenza season of 2019-2020. The focus of the researchers was on temperature regions in tropical and equatorial areas, as well as northern and southern hemispheres. The report is based on the data provided by the national ministries of health and the World Health Organization.
This report is a valuable source for the present study as it includes statistical data on the prevalence of influenza on a global scale a year before the COVID pandemic outbreak and the first year of the pandemic. The data can be instrumental in identifying the patterns of infection spread and transmission mechanisms in diverse regions, as well as the similarities and differences of these aspects regarding COVID-19. The article provides information that can also help in creating proper policies on public health and epidemics prevention.
This article includes an analysis of vaccination against influenza implemented among older people in Brazil in spring 2020. It is reported that a far-reaching campaign that involved volunteers, healthcare, and educational facilities with the development of 35 vaccination stations launch. As a result, 83.3% of the target population were vaccinated, which is close to the necessary vaccination coverage. It is also stressed that this coverage exceeded the vaccination rate of the past five years by over 40%. The high vaccination rate is associated with effective multi-professional collaboration. In terms of this campaign, nurses received training, and the target population was educated regarding the health hazards and vaccination benefits.
This is a valuable source for the present study as it illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of a wide vaccination campaign, which is critical for post-COVID society. The study includes an analysis of the most important and effective aspects of the campaign that can be utilized in the campaign against COVID. The findings can become the basis for the development of a campaign in a particular community or country.
Literature study is one of the most effective ways to gain new knowledge. A detailed analysis of sources allows one to broaden horizons and collect a foundation for drawing conclusions and recommendations for improving almost any professional activity. Nursing research, in this context, is the process of generating credible evidence that will allow for a more detailed consideration of issues of importance to nursing activities (Polit & Beck, 2017). In addition, this process is part of a larger framework, evidence-based practice, which enables the most effective medical decisions to be made, taking into account the patients’ needs and the latest medical research (“Evidence-based practice,” n.d.). Hence, finding and reviewing medical articles is a nurse’s most essential skill. A detailed approach to the literature and careful analysis of sources can lead to better quality services. This paper aims to prove this thesis through a critical study of research by Facciola et al.
Although the benefits of vaccination are scientifically proven and confirmed by many studies, this issue remains controversial in many societies, even in the context of serious diseases. As statistics show, almost half of the studied population has doubts about vaccination against COVID-19, and about 15% of those surveyed refused to take it completely (Khubchandani et al., 2021). The situation is similar to conventional vaccines, especially for children. The reason for the study by Facciola et al. (2019) is a trend of decreasing the number of vaccinated children in Sicily below the optimal value. Since the problem with children’s vaccination lies in the parents’ behavior, they became the leading group of the study. Thus, the main objective of the research was to study the mood of parents regarding vaccination.
Researchers’ stated reasons and goals are articulated clearly, making it easier to understand the focus of the work. The paper’s introduction provides enough background information that guides the reader toward the goal at hand (Facciola et al., 2019). However, it should be noted that there is no research question as such in the work. The reason for this, perhaps, is the formulation of the set research objective since the authors do not try to confirm or deny any hypothesis. Instead, they collect all possible information for further analysis without limiting themselves to one narrow direction. In this case, the absence of a research question is justified since this research is not looking for a specific answer but forms a database for analysis.
The authors chose qualitative analysis as the type of research. According to the text of the article, it was implemented in the form of a survey through the distribution of pre-formed questionnaires (Facciola et al., 2019). The choice of this type of research is due to the stated objective. The answers to the existing questions can only be obtained quantitatively, and questionnaires are best suited to discover common reasons (Busetto et al., 2020). Therefore, the authors’ choice is fully justified and relevant to the research topic. To collect enough data for analysis, Facciola et al. (2019) used a questionnaire examining parents’ opinions of children aged 13-14 years, since, by this age, all vaccinations should be completed.
The authors pay special attention to the HPV vaccine since the rate of vaccination with it in the study area is deficient. The compiled surveys were distributed to 6 schools in the city of Messina on the island of Sicily through meetings with parents. The data was then analyzed using Prism 4.0 software and descriptive statistics (Facciola et al., 2019). In addition, for further evaluation, several tests were used at once: Lilliefors, Shapiro-Wilk, and Pearson. This detailed approach to statistical analysis can be identified as one of the strengths of this study. Also, the authors used a relatively large group of people selected according to criteria suitable for solving the task at hand. The authors themselves do not highlight any additional strengths of their work, but at the same time, indicate the source of the data as limitations since they were obtained through self-reports (Facciola et al., 2019). In addition, they used a non-validated survey, which could negatively affect the survey results.
The research process itself can be considered, for the most part, quite logical and in line with general standards. After considering the theoretical background in the form of world and regional statistics on vaccination, the authors moved on to formulating and substantiating goals and describing the methodology. From the perspective of logical consistency, this study, at first glance, is relatively easy to perceive and analyze. However, it lacks several rather essential elements that make detailed analysis difficult. First of all, the analysis lacks a literature review as such, and its elements are only included in the introduction in the background section. The description of the theoretical framework used was made rather briefly and succinctly without detailed descriptions. Also, while there is a limitations section, there is no similar strengths section. However, these remarks do not violate, for the most part, the logic of the entire study. They can be explained by the peculiarities of constructing the goal and methods, which do not require extensive preliminary analysis.
The authors prepared 1,300 questionnaires distributed in six schools among parents of children of suitable ages to obtain enough information. Back with answers, 84% of the original 1093 questionnaires were received and processed. When conducting such studies, it is necessary to highlight three critical components regarding the sample: correctly determine the size, choose the sampling type and frame. These criteria are usually selected based on research needs and capabilities (Shantikumar & Barrat, 2018). For example, non-probability sampling is usually cheaper, but probability sampling allows for better generalizations.
However, there is no direct indication of any of these components in this paper. All that can be learned from the description of the study design is that parents of schoolchildren 13-14 years old in six schools were taken as a sample, and they took part in the study based on a personal meeting with the paper’s authors (Facciola et al., 2019). Due to the lack of sufficient information, it is impossible to say how the number of parents who underwent the study was determined. It is also impossible to establish the sample type since there is no detailed information about the meeting.
In this case, it can be assumed with equal probability that both all eligible parents and only a certain number of them, chosen randomly or voluntarily, were interviewed. Due to the lack of information, it is also impossible to draw conclusions regarding ethical considerations’ compliance. Although such questionnaires are suitable for research purposes due to the logically correctly identified target audience, it is impossible to evaluate them thoroughly. Thus, sampling details are one of the weak points of this paper, leading to accusations about the quality of the research and adherence to all necessary ethical considerations.
As mentioned above, the only way to collect data for analysis was through the distribution of pre-prepared questionnaires. The text of the article does not provide access to questions directly, instead grouping them into categories for general description (Facciola et al., 2019). Parents were asked both demographic questions and specific ones related to the topic under study. Since the exact wording is hidden, it is impossible to establish whether the given questions were open- or closed-ended, which is an essential factor affecting the accuracy of the answers (“Writing survey questions,” n.d.). It is only known that the data were collected in a qualitative form based on parents’ knowledge of the topics under study.
In the “Results” section, the authors nevertheless refer to rather specific formulations. However, this may be a consequence of the averaging and standardization of the results. In addition, questions were handed out and then collected through face-to-face meetings. This approach dramatically increases the response rate, as demonstrated in a survey (“Online versus offline surveys,” 2020). Since general questions were used in the work, it is impossible to single out any specific studied variables and parameters.
Thus, on the one hand, the article’s authors indicate the tool they used and give its general description. The use of questionnaires with general questions in the task context is more than justified since it allows one to get the opinion of the studied category. However, the approach taken by the authors has several significant flaws. Facciola et al. (2019) noted that the questionnaire used is non-validated, which indicates its unreliability. The questions included were not adequately reviewed, which could affect the final results. In addition, the reader does not have access to the questions themselves, only their categories, which makes it difficult to objectively assess the quality of both the tool and the process being carried out. Finally, a substantial drawback is that this survey gives self-reported data, which is notable for its unreliability.
However, this information has been statistically analyzed using a variety of tools. Due to the essence of the questions asked, qualitative indicators in parental opinions and answers are used as data. Because the reader does not know exactly how the questions were formulated, it is difficult to assess what data should have been obtained. In the “Results” section, the authors demonstrate several statistical blocks divided by the questions asked (Facciola et al., 2019). The data presented correspond to each of the topics of the questions stated earlier. However, they are presented in an extremely difficult form for analysis. The provided graphs reflect only part of the questions asked and provide little information without context.
Since within the framework of this study, there was no literary review as such, the authors refer mainly to background information and analyze the results presented in the discussion. Accordingly, the information collected is practically in no way correlated with the data already available. However, it corresponds to the goals put forward by the authors. Since they were faced with obtaining parental views on vaccination, high-quality self-reported data in the form of answers to questions perfectly suits the study’s objectives. All the presented and analyzed results correspond to the study of parents’ opinions. In addition, the authors compile this data and perform an examination demonstrating general vaccination trends.
Thus, the authors conduct a reasonably detailed study and form fairly detailed conclusions at first glance. However, in this context, several points should be noted. First of all, the authors did not note the parameters of the reliability and severity of the obtained data and the formed conclusions (Facciola et al., 2019). Moreover, they note that the reliability of the entire study is significantly reduced due to the use of self-reported data, insufficient knowledge of parents, and a non-validated questionnaire. These factors have been highlighted as weaknesses in the ongoing investigation, which require further work. However, in this context, to improve future results, only the use of an additional source in the form of the immunization registry is mentioned (Facciola et al., 2019). This factor somewhat further reduces the reliability of the research.
In the “Discussion” section, the authors demonstrate sufficient knowledge and qualifications to conduct a comparative analysis of the available qualitative and percentage data. By comparing data, they make a logical conclusion about trends in vaccination attitudes and their reasons (Facciola et al., 2019). However, the analysis of these types of data is comparatively easy, and in this process, the authors do not refer to the validity or rigor of the study. These factors interfere with the entire critical appraisal of results and findings.
It can be noted that the authors effectively summarized the study results in the form of several general observations regarding vaccination trends. Such a compilation of data not only allows them to transfer it to other studies and use it in the future but also fully corresponds to the stated goals and objectives. Starting this study, Facciola et al. (2019) aimed to provide an overview of parents’ views on vaccinations and highlight the apparent reasons for refusal. The paper’s conclusion is consistent with these themes, but not entirely. Since the conclusion is a fairly positive attitude toward vaccines, the reasons for refusals are not considered in sufficient detail (Facciola et al., 2019). Accordingly, although the recommendations put forward to make sense in the context of the study, not all of the objectives were fully reflected, affecting the credibility of this source.
This paper has a rather low value for practical use, considering the arguments above. According to the authors, the issue of vaccine withdrawal is primarily due to fear of adverse reactions and a lack of factual knowledge about their effectiveness (Facciola et al., 2019). Accordingly, it is proposed to improve parental vaccination knowledge to combat low vaccination rates. However, the authors do not indicate how exactly this should be done. In addition, in the context of such a large-scale study, they provide an extremely limited conclusion with a narrow application in future practice. The main complaint about practice implications is that they are challenging to implement in the context of ordinary healthcare professionals. Raising parental awareness should be an ambitious goal for the entire health sector. At the same time, the authors do not indicate to whom they are addressing their paper nor what measures should be taken.
Thus, it can be concluded that this paper has a relatively low value from the perspective of nursing research. Despite considering the relevance of, especially in pandemic times, topics, the authors make many inaccuracies both in the research format and in the development of conclusions. For example, the paper lacks a full-fledged literary review and assessment of the available data, making it difficult to link the research with the historical context. In addition, there is no data on sampling principles and detailed information on questionnaires. All these elements, coupled with rather general and meager conclusions, allow concluding that the research has practically no connection with actual nursing practice. Although some of the data obtained by the authors can be used as general guidance on parental opinions about vaccination, they need to be approached with great caution.
“The covid-19 vaccine roll out is a controversial topic, that’s led to many heated debates amongst family and friends” (Pros and Cons of a Mandatory Vaccination Policy para. 1). The main problem of modern society, which is the most acute, is the pandemic of a new coronavirus that is gaining momentum. Many measures have been introduced to reduce the deleterious effects of the disease and its further spread. However, the most promoted measure, besides self-isolation, is considered to be vaccination. This raises the question of whether vaccination should be a mandatory measure in such a situation. This paper looks at vaccination of the population as an effective way to combat Covid-19 disease. Among the main positive factors in support of compulsory vaccination is the creation of collective immunity, which will help to reduce the incidence of the disease.
Coronavirus Characteristics
First, it is necessary to have a complete understanding of such a disease as coronavirus infection. Therefore, this disease is transmitted by airborne droplets, hence can be spread through coughing, sneezing and in some cases even through the breathing of an infected person to another. Characteristic features of the virus are the occurrence of respiratory failure, pneumonia, loss of sense of smell, and many other symptoms similar to the flu and a bad cold. The risk group during a coronavirus pandemic includes people with chronic illnesses and the elderly. Moreover, Covid-19 infection occurs with even the slightest contact with a sick person, which contributes to its rapid spread. All of the above factors make it necessary to introduce preventive and prophylactic measures to help control the disease.
To better understand why it is necessary to vaccinate the world’s population against coronavirus infection, people can turn to history. Over the years, the vaccine has become a tool for fighting various human infections and diseases that can reach large-scale epidemics. It is because many people in today’s society are vaccinated against diseases such as polio or rubella that the level of deleterious effects of these organisms is virtually nil. A more striking and relevant example is how, at one time, the widespread incidence of influenza was virtually eliminated, thanks to the vaccination of residents and the acquisition of immunity to the disease.
Mandatory Vaccination
The safety of vaccination against the new disease affecting the planet has long been proven by numerous studies. This is due to the fact that the basis of the injected drug is taken adenovirus, which the human body encounters in such diseases as colds. Furthermore, this kind of virus has no ability to reproduce in normal cells. In addition, adenovirus is characterized by the presence of a deciphered part of the virus genome, not the coronavirus itself. Thus, when vaccinated, people are not carriers of the disease and cannot get sick or infect others. The introduction of adenovirus into the body leads to the formation of human immunity, as there is a protective response and the production of antibodies.
Multiple sources point out that, to date, vaccination appears to be one of the most effective ways to combat the pandemic. It is noted that the body’s reaction to the Covid-19 vaccine is no different from that which may arise from any other drug. Among the possible symptoms are fever, headache, weakness and discomfort at the injection site. This response of the human body is completely normal and only lasts a couple of days. The main effect of the Covid-19 vaccination is to transform the human immune system so that the body can recognize and target pathogens. The main result of the vaccination is considered to be an increase in the body’s resistance, but how each person’s system will respond to the innovation. The state of a person’s immune system, which can be characterized by the strength of their resistance to disease or the presence of chronic disease, play a significant role in the end result from vaccination.
Many people deny the existence of the pandemic and the virus as such, but this is the wrong position. There is plenty of evidence that the coronavirus has its own negative effects and can be fatal in some cases. Moreover, one should not be hammered about the serious contribution and sacrifice that medical professionals make to combat the disease. These are the people who will cool the vaccination procedure in the first place to protect not only themselves, but also the people around them. Furthermore, passing the compulsory vaccination has no effect on the habitual life of a person, but only positive consequences. Thus, with this tool to fight the pandemic, people gain control over the virus, making it manageable, which ensures the safety of their health and well-being. This aspect becomes especially important for the protection of people at risk, for whom the disease can unfortunately become fatal.
At the moment, the media is making an especially big fuss about compulsory vaccination of the population. This causes anxiety and excitement among the population, as these sources of information tend to exaggerate the present. However, on the other hand, the media can be a useful tool for spreading awareness about the importance of undergoing this procedure. Knowledge has to be disseminated through them that the acquisition of collective immunity plays a decisive role in the fight against the disease.
As already noted, vaccination is especially important for health care workers in society. For example, the media and social media in the United States are full of headlines about the introduction of compulsory vaccination against the coronavirus. The surge of illnesses in the country during the summer had a strong impact on the planned easing of preventative measures and policies in the country. This led President Joe Biden to announce the introduction of the vaccine for all government employees and to demand that other sectors require staff to undergo the procedure.
This rule especially applies to people who work directly with the infected part of the population. For health care workers, this method of protection is most needed. This is because they are exposed to the virus every day and can be the root cause of infecting other patients. Literature shows that “vaccination protects individuals from covid-19 and reduces the risk of transmission of disease to others” (Hayes and Pollock 374). Furthermore, this requires strengthening their immunity and health by undergoing a vaccination procedure.
The coronavirus pandemic has had a profound and irreversible impact on all areas of modern human life worldwide. Vaccination is then one of the most effective ways to combat the disease, preventing its spread and creating a collective immunity (Tregoning et al. 626). That is why it is necessary to provide people with the necessary knowledge to improve the epidemiological situation on the planet. Despite all the above positive aspects of the population vaccination procedure, some factors need to be mentioned separately, as they are of particular value in consideration of the research question.
The first important factor in combating Covid-19 is to vaccinate the largest portion of the population. This must be done to provide protection and reduce the spread and impact of the disease. Therefore, this aspect implies the use of epidemiological data to show the population the dynamics of the disease in order to awaken in them the desire to fight the pandemic. For this purpose, a social approach to problem-solving can be used, which can be particularly effective in the case under study.
Another argument for the introduction of mandatory vaccination is the fact that this action will ensure the removal of the blockages established all over the world. This action is particularly important for businesses and educational institutions. Reducing the number of people who become ill and effectively rolling out the vaccination program will help increase and improve the economic performance of countries by putting people back to work and making industry more productive. The development of infection control policies can play a crucial role, as it will also help to open up organizations that provide educational services. This is especially important because distance education in some cases is ineffective or cannot be applied at all.
The main obstacle to fighting the adoption of compulsory vaccination may be the fact that compulsory action may conflict with the rights of citizens. Due to this fact the level of indecision and refusal to undergo the preventive procedure increases. There is no doubt that respect for human autonomy and self-determination is a paramount human value. The driving force behind any government decision must be fairness to the population. However, it is the view that the imposition of compulsory vaccination impedes the personal boundaries of individuals that prevents immunization against disease.
However, it must be remembered that a pandemic is not a phenomenon affecting only individuals, it affects the whole of mankind and depends on the adoption of a common, balanced effort. It is important to disseminate information about the disease and about the positive consequences of universal vaccination. Moreover, the less burdensome a process that reduces the universal risk, and the more it is blocked, the stronger the ethical reason for compulsory vaccination.
The concept is that it takes a certain number of people whose bodies are able to resist the disease to reduce transmission and prevent the spread of the coronavirus. This leads to a policy of safety and the importance of compulsory vaccination as an effective weapon against Covid-19. However, there is an opinion that this concept cannot have guaranteed results, because it is temporary and may lead to a recurrence of the outbreak later on. On the other hand, it is noted that collective immunity can be maintained by adhering to vaccination periods at least for the first time. Technology is moving forward, and scientists are already working on a vaccine that will be sufficient to create a long-lasting and effective immunity.
Thus, collective immunity may also depend on such an aspect as co-dependence on how many people on average one infected person infects while the organism is contagious. At the same time, it is worth considering that if this value is greater than one, exponential increase in the incidence of disease and vice versa can be seen. Among the ways the government reduces the incidence of the disease and maintains the level of the uninfected population, several important measures have been taken. These include keeping a social distance, wearing masks, and transferring most employees to remote work. Moreover, avoidance of mass events with large crowds, hygiene and immunization are also among them.
In the fight against coronavirus infection, there is also the important issue of informed choice, which directly affects the legal aspect of people’s lives. As already mentioned, everyone has the right to choose as a basic right, and no one should violate it. Similarly, this factor applies to what drug a person decides to use to acquire immunity from the disease. Thus, it is important to take all possible measures to achieve a situation in the world in which people understand precisely that getting vaccinated is critical and do not feel threatened. This is also due to the fact that there are still members of society who do not trust the published data on the effectiveness and testing of a particular vaccine. So, if vaccination is made compulsory, without making sure that people fully agree with it, it could lead to many legal problems, which could be a major obstacle.
At the same time, one major fact must be considered that whether or not to be vaccinated is up to each individual. However, to completely defeat the pandemic people need to achieve a high percentage of collective immunity. This requires that approximately eighty percent of the world’s population be vaccinated and that one person infect less than one person. Vaccination is the primary and most important way to achieve these statistics and to avoid severe disease and death. Thus, vaccine denial puts not only one person’s health at risk, but also the health of everyone around them.
Among the arguments against the introduction of compulsory vaccination is also the fact that even after the vaccine is administered, many people continue to get the coronavirus again. This raises doubts about the long-term effects of the vaccine and its effectiveness in the future (Malik et al. 3). The doubts in this case are caused by two aspects, the first of which is that time is needed at this point to fully investigate the durability of the vaccine. Not enough time has passed since the beginning of the pandemic to determine exactly how long before immunity can develop that will resist all modifications of the virus. Thus, the emergence of new strains of the coronavirus also makes it difficult to find a single salvage drug that fits all cases. However, “strong international coordination and cooperation between vaccine developers, regulators, public health bodies and governments will be needed to ensure that vaccines can be manufactured in sufficient quantities and equitably supplied to all affected areas” (Andreadakis et al. 306). Therefore, many different solutions to this problem are being developed around the world, and with everyone’s cooperation and in-depth research, the right drug will be available in time.
Conclusion
Moreover, complete and serious control of the COVID-19 pandemic requires collaborative vaccination at all levels of modern society. This is because such a global and pervasive problem requires commensurate solutions. Among such methods should be accessible and free vaccination, which could be a key factor in solving the problem under study. On the other hand, despite the undeniable benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 in reducing the incidence and transmission of the virus, the issue of mandatory nature is still controversial. There are a lot of different arguments for and against, and each person decides individually what to do. However, it must be remembered that the sooner humanity gains collective immunity, the sooner the pandemic, which has already claimed many lives, will end. Therefore, once a person has been vaccinated, he or she will become resistant to the disease and its possible modifications and will be able to protect those around him or her from the disease.
Works Cited
Andreadakis, Z., et al. “The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape.” Nature Reviews. Drug discovery, vol. 19, no. 5, 2020, pp. 305-306.
Hayes, Lydia, and Allyson M. Pollock. “Mandatory covid-19 vaccination for care home workers.” BMJ, 2021, p. 374.
Malik, Amyn A., et al. “Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US.” EClinicalMedicine, vol. 26, 2020.
“Pros and Cons of a Mandatory Vaccination Policy”. Mooreplay, 2021, Web.
Tregoning, John S., et al. “Progress of the COVID-19 vaccine effort: viruses, vaccines and variants versus efficacy, effectiveness and escape.” Nature Reviews Immunology, 2021, pp. 626-636.
Coronavirus affected many people globally, leading to the loss of many people’s lives. Governments worldwide had to develop interventions that aimed to curb the spreading of the infection. People’s movement restrictions, curfews, closing schools, and individuals wearing masks were among the initiatives advocated to stop the progress of the disease. There was a rapid development of vaccines by several companies to help protect the public against the virus. In the USA, COVID-19 killed many people, and thus the government started directing citizens to get vaccinated. Mandatory coronavirus vaccination evoked debates among leaders in the USA. The supporters of compulsory vaccination think it helps save lives, while the opposers view it as an infringement of human rights and privacy.
Compulsory Vaccination in the USA
Many political leaders in the USA were urging the citizens to get vaccinated. President Biden sent a message with a harsher tone to the unvaccinated individuals in the country (Dyer). He informed the people that the vaccines were convenient, free, and safe; he added that the state had been patient enough, so individuals were to undertake the right action. Biden’s order also mandated that all healthcare workers must get vaccinated. In Virginia, a bill was introduced on 10th September in Congress that required COVID-19 negative test or vaccination proof for all the local travelers in the USA airports (Dyer). The government was also to strengthen the vaccination command on its employees, and the transportation security agencies were to increase fines for those found not wearing masks.
Governors and some Republican leaders stressed they would fight Biden’s orders in the court. Biden stated the Governors were causing the pandemic politics as people were dying, and he would use his power as the president to get such leaders out (Dyer). Several large companies, such as Tyson Foods, McDonald’s, and Delta Airlines, mandated their workers to get vaccinated. In the polls, the views of the Republicans on the vaccination directive were heavily opposed, while those of the Democrats were favored. Other workers suggested they would rather resign than get the compulsory vaccination. Vaccination mandates in the USA can limit access to public services, schools, and even employment (Shachar and Reiss 37). Exemptions may be permitted, for example, for individuals who have health conditions that may be exaggerated by vaccine administration.
As the coronavirus infections were on the rampant rise in the USA, Biden used his powers to direct the nation. He ordered that most federal government employees mandatory vaccination and companies ensure that their workforce was fully jabbed or allow the workers to have regular testing (Rasheed). These measures sparkled court challenges and protest, and even the local politician opted to counter these directions. Protestors in many cities, such as New York, went to the streets to campaign against the compulsory jabbing. In the demonstration, a poster that read “We are not lab rats” and “No to Dictatorship” was used (Rasheed). Others argued it was against their human rights and privacy to be forced to undertake the forced vaccination. Further, individuals claimed they protected their bodies and were entitled to decision-making. Experts said that even if the vaccination is justified, authorities should not use physical force to get citizens vaccinated.
A hesitancy between the employers and employees rose on whether COVID-19 vaccination was supposed to be mandatory for the workers in the USA. People argued that the vaccination command was the state’s responsibility, not private employers. When an organization demands that its workers get vaccinated, it shows the personal power of capital on individuals in ways that can easily make the employees reluctant (o-Lindell). People argued that the healthcare workers were supposed to be the first to be mandated to receive the vaccines and not every person. In a survey conducted, it was shown that 18% of the healthcare workers were not planning to be vaccinated against coronavirus (Bokat-Lindell). Some nurses argued they disliked being told what to do, while others agreed to take the vaccine, understanding that hesitancy had consequences.
The public reacted differently to the coronavirus vaccination command by the government. People argued it was different when the state mandates individuals to be vaccinated compared to private mandating people to be vaccinated (Bokat-Lindell). Other Individuals supported the state to give the direction because of its power to introduce the directives, remove them or alter them through the democratically elected leaders (Bokat-Lindell). Other people argued some vaccines had not received the full approval of the FDA and therefore imposing them on the public would raise stern ethical concerns. Individuals also believed that FDA approved some vaccines under the emergency process and did not carefully understand their efficacy against the asymptomatic coronavirus infection. Mandating the public’s COVID-19 vaccination can reduce their support for the program, causing citizens to decrease uptake. Most legislators, mainly the Republicans in over 23 states, had proposed policies that would prevent employers from requiring their employees to get vaccinated (Bokat-Lindell). In New Jersey, a law was also presented by the Republicans to enable Rutgers University to withdraw the vaccine mandate for the students. The issue brought an intense debate among the leaders in the USA.
The authors aimed to understand the people’s position regarding the mandate of coronavirus vaccination. In the news and journal articles of Shachar and Reiss, Rasheed, and Dyer, they showed that the vaccination mandate from the government and private employers sparkled intense debates. There was a massive debate between the Democrats and the Republicans regarding the order of vaccination (Dyer). Some Republicans had vowed to try the Biden’s coronavirus obligatory vaccination in court as they felt it was against human rights. These articles were unbiased as they explained both sides of the issue; the people advocating for the vaccination and those against it.
These news articles have impacted me regarding the perception of the American political process. I acknowledged that leaders have a significant role in shaping the nation regarding health, employment, and education. Their decisions hugely impact many people in society, and their verdicts may lead to intense debate within the community. Leaders who advise the public not to get vaccinated may create a massive problem in society that leads to many individuals dying because of coronavirus. Conversely, leaders who mandate vaccination to their individuals may invoke people to feel that it is against their rights. The authors do not change my political views as I am concerned only about a decision that will positively impact the enormous population.
Conclusion
In conclusion, public participation should be encouraged when the state tackles some controversial topics. Biden saw that mandatory vaccination could help reduce the death cases from COVID-19 in the USA. In contrast, most Republicans saw it violated human rights, and they were ready to challenge the directive in court. Other individuals felt that the private companies had no right to direct people to be vaccinated.
Works Cited
Bokat-Lindell, Spencer. ” Should Covid Vaccines Be Mandatory?” The New York Times, Web.
Dyer, Owen. “Covid-19: US Imposes Mandatory Vaccination on Two-Thirds of Workforce.” BMJ, no. 374, p.2238, 2021, Web.
Rasheed, Zaheena. “Should COVID-19 Vaccines Be Mandatory?” Aljazeera News, Web.
Shachar, Carmel, and Dorit Rubinstein Reiss. “When Are Vaccine Mandates Appropriate?” AMA Journal of Ethics, vol. 22, no. 1, 2020, pp. 36–42, Web.
Respect is the ultimate enabler of freedom, which is particularly important in the contemporary environment. It is present in many forms and aspects, but the acceptance of others’ religious remains the cornerstone of a democratic society. Indeed, the right to exercise one’s beliefs, customs, and traditions is a fundamental one. Moreover, it is protected by the United States Constitution, confirming the essential status of freedom for the entire nation. However, the threshold between the infringement of freedom and the necessary aspects of modern civilization. While some of them may be driven by good intentions, they continue to contradict the centuries-old traditions of certain groups. Such situations pose dilemmas for the legal system, as it is necessary to strike a balance between respect for freedom and the common well-being of the nation. Vaccination is one of such acute questions, as the Christian worldview often interprets it as the equivalent of trusting humankind over God. The purpose of this paper is to review the dilemma in the context of the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion.
Historically, American society aimed at ensuring all forms of liberty within the country. The United States Constitution has been reinforcing this idea, and its First Amendment is one of the key instruments in this regard. According to the U.S. Courts, the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion while securing citizens’ right to exercise the religion of their preference.1 At the same time, all states require children to undergo mandatory vaccination before being enrolled in schools. However, the current legislative framework provides a range of exemptions based on medical, religious, and philosophical factors.2. The clash between these requirements and anti-vaccination movements became more evident in 2015, following the measles outbreak in Disneyland in California. Pierik writes that the situation prompted individuals and organizations to re-evaluate their perception of non-medical exemptions.3 Nevertheless, their very existence is conditioned by the United States Constitution, meaning that the matter continues to pose dilemmas for society.
From one perspective, if personal religious views do not align with vaccinations, they are to be respected. This is exactly the case of the Yoder family, who believe that vaccinating their children would imply that they rely on people instead of the Lord. If this notion is embedded in Yoders’ religious worldview, it is the Court’s constitutional obligation to respect it. Evidently, the recent outbreaks contributed to the pro-vaccination movements, but, as of now, the legislative aspect is on Yoders’ side. Pennsylvania recognizes not only the religious basis for non-medical exemption but also the philosophical one.4. Accordingly, the state law guarantees Yoders an opportunity to prevent their children from being vaccinated until new bills are introduced to cause a shift in the current paradigm.
In conclusion, the freedom to exercise one’s preferred religion is ensured by the United States Constitution and its First Amendment. Beliefs are necessary for one’s inner peace and spiritual development, and the government is expected to recognize the delicate nature of religious views. Despite a surge in pro-vaccination initiatives, the current legislation of most states retains the Freedom of Exercise clause, and this list includes Pennsylvania. Overall, vaccination remains a matter of personal discretion, but it appears possible to incorporate it into the religious worldview. Even though vaccines are made by people, everything happens per God’s design, meaning that vaccination may be his doing, as well. However, should one decide to refrain from vaccinating, the law of the Constitution provides sufficient support in this regard.
Pierik, Roland. “On Religious and Secular Exemptions: A Case Study of Childhood Vaccination Waivers.” Ethnicities 17, no. 2 (2017): 220–241.
Reding, Kyle. “Do We Need Religious and Philosophical Exemptions to Vaccination?” Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety, and Biodefense Law 10, no. 1 (2019).
Footnotes
“First Amendment and Religion,” United States Courts. n.d. Web.
Reding, Kyle. “Do We Need Religious and Philosophical Exemptions to Vaccination?” Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety, and Biodefense Law 10, no. 1 (2019).
Pierik, Roland. “On Religious and Secular Exemptions: A Case Study of Childhood Vaccination Waivers.” Ethnicities 17, no. 2 (2017): 220–241.
“States with Religious and Philosophical Exemptions from School Immunization Requirements,” National Conference of State Legislatures. Web.
Nowadays, many people still hesitate to vaccinate because of probable side effects. Among them are pregnant women being afraid of the impact of the vaccine on a baby’s health. However, there is a claim that Covid-19 is sure to be far more harmful than an injection. Indeed, mass media try to spread this information by applying verified sources to make the audience be reasonable and do their best to avoid the disease.
Admittedly, vaccination may affect people in different ways causing a rise in temperature and blood pressure or not having any noticeable effect. Nevertheless, there are vulnerable groups who have chronic illnesses, disabilities, or pregnancies. They are generally believed to run at risk of dying of Covid-19. Therefore it may sound sensible that the representatives of such groups should be vaccinated first. Probably, the reason why they do not want to vaccinate lies in stereotypes and prejudices demonizing the vaccines.
To get rid of disinformation Health News From NPR published an article on the topic that contains the research on how Pfizer influences pregnant women. According to it, Dr. Kathryn Gray, “maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston”, conducted a study on the influence of Pfizer on pregnant women (Greenhalgh para. 4). They were vaccinated and watched for six weeks, after which the women turned out to have acquired a significant amount of antibodies, more than the average quantity after recovering from Covid-19. Fortunately, no grave negative consequences were detected, only common ailment. Thus, Pfizer should be recommended as well-tried weapon in the fight against the coronavirus.
Meanwhile, it would be valuable to turn to the original source and compare the authentic results with those presented in the text of the journal article. After a brief examination, it turns out that no exaggeration was applied. The initial data and findings were summarized correctly, though some details were omitted. For instance, the research provides the following correlation – “Neutralizing antibody titers were lower in umbilical cord than maternal sera, although this finding did not achieve statistical significance (maternal sera, median, 104.7; interquartile range, 61.2–188.2; cord sera, median, 52.3; interquartile range, 11.7–69.6; P=.05)” (Gray 101-117). It can be easily advocated because the author aims to make the research not too sophisticated to understand for common readers.
All things considered, the article seems to be illustrative of how an honest journalist should work for the sake of common welfare. It would be of no use to make alterations in it as it is likely to be readable and, yet, informative. Besides, the author did not forget to provide a link for readers to get access to the research data and added the necessary statistics as proof.
