The result of this discussion was a multi sided reaction, Some nurses felt “validated” because they found out others agreed with their convictions, while other people felt that these nurses should be better informed on the effectivity of vaccines. Yazdi makes her final point by saying that we all have theright of choice. If a family chooses to decline vaccinations they should be able to do so.While some people declare that science is firmly on the side of the vaccine safety it is important to consider a few factors in this discussion. First, is the playing field level in regards to scientific studies, or is there an inherent bias that exists?
Secondly are observable changes in children’s cognitive and physical function worthconsidering as evidence? In a narrative review published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine the authors state that there is often a bias in medical literature, estimating generously the effectiveness and mitigating the safety risks of intervention treatments. They concluded that “reporting bias is a widespread phenomenon” and mandatory publication and public access should be allowed. This in turn will allow for “independent review of research data” (McGauran, et al.). The question begs an answer, why is this the case? In ethics we learn that the stakeholders must always be identified so that proper judgement can be levied in a particular situation. Since many of the safety studies for vaccinations have been done by those who stand to profit most from their acceptance and implementation, many parents are wisely choosing to proceed with caution.Are parents and doctors’ observations worth considering, or must all science be conducted in a controlled environment? There are numerous parents who have made a judgement based upon observations they have personally had that conflictswith the accepted storyline of “science”.
When speaking out, these doctors and Hochstetler parents are often demonized because of their observations or conclusions. Some authorities have even gone so far as to quash data that is inconvenient or possibly damaging to their point of view. Case in point the CDC covered up findings that showed an increase in Autism among African American boys who received the MMR shots (Brogan). It took one of their own scientists coming out as a whistleblower before this was exposed. Who are the stakeholders when a child is harmed? Does the government step in and take responsibility? Do the doctors shoulder responsibility? The obvious answer is no. The parents are left holding the bag and they are the obvious stakeholders in their child’s health. Therefore parents most definitely should have the right to make decisions for the health of their child, even if their decisions conflict with the accepted norm or timetable of childhood vaccinations.While the benefits versus the risks of vaccinations are in debate, perhaps affecting American parents on a more personal level is the question of whether vaccines should be mandatory. There is a fundamental difference between the premise on which both sides approach this issue.
Those who promote mandatory vaccines are doing it on the basis of social responsibility; what one person does affects another, and therefore a minimum standard should be in place to reduce danger of exposure. On the other hand, those who promote freedom of choice approach this issue as a matter of basic freedom; the government and others should not be able to decide a child’s personal decisions relating to healthcare, those are reserved for the parents.Following the logic through to its outcome for either side of this debate bringsrecognizable flaws and shows why the discussion doesn’t have a simple answer. If personal liberty is the ultimate standard for the way in which a country should operate, than the currently mandated auto liability insurance is already an over-step. The ultimate outcome of total personal liberty within a country is anarchy, anda country that descends into total dysfunction. On the other hand if the government decides matters of personal choice and healthcare from a social responsibility perspective, where are the boundaries?
When visitors arrive from another country should they be vaccinated to meet the same standards that are mandated in this country? If a single mother is dependent on government assistance to raise her children, it could be argued that it is her social responsibility stop bearing children which she cannot afford to raise. Personal Liberty is an important principle on which the USA was founded and continues to be a dearly held belief for much of the population. This was a principle held by the founding fathers as the Declaration of Independence states, “[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [r]ights, that among these are [l]ife, [l]iberty and the pursuit of [h]appiness.”
So how can the principles of personalliberty and social responsibility coexist? This is an issue that is continuously debatedin government meetings, on a local level as well as on a national level. There are many freedoms that exist with the USA that are taken for granted until they are threatened, and then a rabble is raised. The American government was set up as a system in which the people govern themselves. The idea that a sovereign ruler would be the one making decisions which in turn are implemented by the ruler’s own men is a foreign idea and one that causes most American people a great deal of trepidation. The issue of mandatory vaccinations is an issue of personal freedom. When people are coerced to put something in their bodies, or their children’s bodies, the principle of personal
