Your sick child takes a drink without you looking, you take a drink after him not knowing that he is carrying the flu virus. You get up in the middle of the night, feeling sick to your stomach, running a fever, and feeling queasy. You think back to the last time you have shared or gotten close to anyone sick, you remember that your child is sick and think back to the last time you or him got a flu vaccine, or any vaccine. Vaccines help protect us from sickness and build up antigens to fight the virus off. Children should get vaccines for the protection of others. Vaccination rules need to be changed to prevent a major outbreak of several or one diseases. The CDC can reduce the number of unvaccinated children by creating strict rules that parents must follow. Therefore; the vaccines will be technically forced upon the child if needed and given proper
Mandatory vaccinations for children in public schools have been the center of much debate since laws were first developed to regulate immunization. Fears from parents about side effects and adverse reactions have steered many away from wanting to vaccinate their children despite the numerous infectious diseases they prevent. These debates have gotten in the way of progression in schools for preventing the spread of disease. To me, the risks of not vaccinating children are far greater than the risks of adverse reactions. Parents who don’t vaccinate their children put them and others at risk because it allows normally preventable disease to continue to spread.
The sticker that the influenza vaccine campaign uses " The Flu Stops with U" is an effectiveness advertisement, because it appeals to all ages. The advertisement 's try to explain their purpose, they like to target certain audience, and the persuasive techniques should be clear.
Is mandatory vaccination really necessary? Experts around the world collectively say 'Yes '. Mandatory vaccinations have proven, several times throughout history, to be incredibly helpful and at times crucial to the well-being of the human race. Mandating certain vaccines has saved entire nations from disaster and defeat. The lack of vaccinations and medical treatment for some viruses has wiped out populations as a whole. Disease can overthrow a culture and spread like wildfire when not taken precaution against. However, there exists a fierce opposition against the mandate of vaccination by some groups of interest with the existence of adverse effects by vaccination to the human body as a reason. Although vaccination carries some health risks,
These days’ patients can either opt out of treatment or health care options in general because the healthcare system has undergone so much scrutiny for many incidents that still go on, because there’s not a day that goes by without see these drug compensation commercials. Compensation for patients whom have suffered the side effects of drugs that were tested on them with vague explanations of how it would work, and we see human beings die off of such careless inhumane acts. Patients should be constantly reminded of their rights, like how the police read one’s Miranda before they arrested it should be the first thing a care giver makes sure his or her patient knows before they agree to any type of treatment that just
Influenza season is here again so it is time for everybody to add getting a flu shot to their “to-do” list. It is recommended for everyone to get flu shot from ages 6 months and older (McCarthy 1). It is the obligation of healthcare works and their employers to promote influenza vaccinations to patients and is an annual requirement for the workers as well (Lynkowski 1). Winter season is time for healthcare workers to get in line, roll up their sleeves and consent to treatment for a flu shot. For the hospital, their goal is to get all employees vaccinated, especially those who have direct contact with patients which brings up a number of ethical issues arising from the attempts to implement mandatory flu shots (Dubov 2530). The mandatory vaccination requirement is regularly a point of concern to those who have objections to vaccinations. Flu shots should be mandatory for healthcare workers despite objections in order to protect patients and to minimize work days missed due to illness.
Conflict between individual good and the common good is at the core of this issue; hence it is really important to note that California seems to set the trends that the rest of the country has a tendency to follow. Of course the common good is always defined by the State, or the group of usually power hungry people who have gained control of the helm of Government. The United States has a responsibility of preventing illnesses and death, but not at the cost of our freedom to choose what is best for our family and individual needs. Of course the individual’s decision should be a well informed and educated one not a choice the state should make for us, but to help guide us in the right direction to make a confident choice. Vaccinations are felt to be one our healthiest actions. However, a moral dilemma lies in the balance of personal autonomy and choice versus protection of the risk of the entire population. During public emergencies such as an epidemic, of course vaccines should be mandated for mankind, but otherwise the decision should be a personal
Since the early 19th century case of Gibbons v. Ogden, Congress’ ability to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause has rapidly expanded. What began as the power to control trade between two states soon extended to transportation, production of goods shipped between states, and eventually to activity with a substantial influence on commerce. In the latter half of the 20th century, the Supreme Court finally began to restrict the extent of the Commerce Clause with the cases of U.S. v. Lopez, U.S. v. Morrison, and later NFIB v. Sebelius. After the trend of lessening the power of the Commerce Clause, Congress does not have a Constitutional basis to enact the Beat the Flu Act. While some may equate the case to Wickard v. Fillburn in an argument
How would you feel if you discovered that doctors were pushing flu vaccinations on patients just for financial reasons? That, along with many other, is one good point Claire Dowskin brings up in her article “The Truth Behind Flu Shot Mandates for Healthcare Workers”. In some hospitals flu vaccination funding for employees is out of the funding, and in some hospitals, will fire, or not hire, people if they have not, or refuse to receive a flu vaccination, wearing a mask is not even acceptable. Seeing how strict and forceful some hospitals are about flu vaccines would make one think they act this way for a payout for the vaccine distributers. Another way to look at this is how unethical mandatory vaccines are. Dwoskin (2017) makes a great point
Requiring vaccinations is a highly debatable topic in the United States today. An article by Ronald Bayer, “The continuing tensions between individual rights and public health,” is one of the most reliable sources in the case study. The author has a PhD from the University of Chicago and focuses his research on issues of social justice and ethical matters. Bayer has also previously been a consultant to the World Health Organization on ethical issues related to public health. This makes him very knowledgeable about the topic and a highly credible source. In the article he discusses what makes vaccinations a controversy among Americans. He says, “it would be more honest and in the long term more protective of public health to acknowledge that intervention is sometimes necessary to protect individuals from their own foolish or dangerous behaviour” (Bayer 4). This statement shows his support for vaccinations.
On the other hand, Bihr gains an audience related advantage of safety values when she addresses the topic of protecting children from harm; Bihr explains that administering vaccines helps protect children from illnesses like the influenza virus or rotavirus. Researchers Ferdinands et al. (2014) found that the “…influenza vaccination was associated with about a three-quarters reduction in risk of influenza-related critical illness in children…Our results highlight the value of increasing the use of influenza vaccines among children” (Ferdinands et al., 2014, p. 681); while Dr. Cave’s (2014) piece, Adolescent refusal of MMR inoculation: F (mother) v F (father), adds that “A global vaccination campaign has led to a 71 per cent drop in measles-related deaths between 2000 and 2011, making a huge impact on the death rate which was estimated at 2.6 million deaths per year in the 1980s” (Cave, 2014, p. 631). In both sources, vaccinations were statistically proven to reduce the risks of illnesses and appeals to those who agree that vaccinations are a safe option for protection, giving support to Bihr’s push for vaccinations.
Vaccination is a key factor in keeping communities safe from harmful diseases, especially those that can spread easily. However, pediatric immunization policy can be debated from an ethical perspective because it concerns the role of the government and families in maintaining the health of children. I will argue that the immunization requirements with exemptions for school entrance in Washington state are ethically required because they balance the role of the government in public health and personal autonomy in the most minimally intrusive way possible.
A student from the Michigan University (2007) defines Bioethics as an activity which is a shared, reflective examination of ethical issues in health care, health science, and health policy. These fields have always had ethical standards, of course, handed down within each profession, and often without question. Hence, the discussion of this standards is called Bioethics. This discussions takes place in the media, in the academy, in classrooms, in labs, offices, and hospital wards. The conversation is often sparked by new developments, like the possibility of cloning. But bioethics also raises new questions about old issues, like the use of placebos and the treatment of pain. Some of the early founders of bioethics put into view four principles which formed this framework for moral reasoning. These four principles are: (1) Autonomy which means that one should respect the right of individuals to make their own decisions. (2) Non-maleficence which means that one should avoid causing harm. (3)Beneficence meaning that one should take positive steps to help others. And lastly (4) Justice meaning that benefits and risks should be fairly distributed.