People do use religious and opinionated excuses to prevent their children from becoming vaccinated. Parents and guardians believe myths and Facebook posts instead of well educated doctors to determine if their child should be vaccinated. This is a huge mistake! By not vaccinating your children properly you are not only putting them at risk, but the people around them that they encounter daily (CDC). Parents should not be able to make up an uneducated excuse to keep their children from being properly vaccinated.
Gress’s statement. Utilizing the principle of nonmaleficence, it is clear that not telling the patient may present itself to be harmful to them as it denies them full disclosure of their health status, even if what their doctor relays is not the best news or was not acquired at the request of the patient. Thus, if Dr. Gress informed his patients that they had the APOe gene, they would know their future health risks and could prepare for them should the test results actualize one day. Also, if the patient chooses to reproduce they will be able to inform their children that they might be at risk as well. Instead of withholding serious information from these patients, Dr. Gress should have helped provide them with the resources they needed to change their life in a way that proved most beneficial to those who may develop Alzheimer’s and refer them to others who could help them deal with this new information throughout their lives.
Conversion Therapy Although many people have strong convictions against gay people, sometimes leading parents to attempt to change their children’s sexual orientation, it should be banned on a national level for parents to be able to force their children under the age of 18 into conversion therapy because it is unconstitutional, it evidently damages the child's wellbeing, and the methods have never even been proven by credible research. Members of the ex-gay (anti-LGBT) movement argue that banning reparative therapy is an infringement on the rights to freedom of speech and religion, while parents following this movement have similar feelings and believe that putting their child through conversion therapy will help them be ridded of an "unwanted
These people would rather believe that the mom and dad would hurt their children without a single shred of physical evidence. All they was testimony that had been altered by the Prosecution. So my reaction is quite concerning, this could possibly happen to anyone again. I’m sure it will and has. So my reaction is less focussed towards the accused and more towards the hysteria that surround the accused.
The various amounts of cases represent there is in need of more investigation during the trial of the custody of the child. Emphasizing, if the father was reported for domestic violence, the child shouldn’t be living with someone who will do harm to the child. It questions the logic behind the court’s decision about the custody, causing them to rethink and thoroughly examine the case. Bartlow states that, “they are deliberately undertaken by one parent (in most cases, the mother) to ‘alienate’ the child from the other parent (generally, the father)”. The author argues that the “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is biased and generalized tactic
According to the first amendment everyone has the freedom of speech, but does that include putting other children at risk for not choosing to no inoculate others? Parents have the right to exercise their religion and not vaccinate their children, but that also puts children who are to young to receive their vaccinations at risk. Some parents have the preconceived notion that the new “cocktails” of vaccinations are to blame for the contraction of autism in their children which is why they refuse to inoculate their children. Having said that, one of our founding principles is “individualism”, we have to respect people’s decisions even if it is outside the cultural norm. Although, medical evidence is inconclusive at this point in time, however the research is still ongoing.
Some parents have refused vaccinations for their children based on religious objections. The moral opposition to these vaccines is due to the acquisition of the initial cell lines in which vaccine viruses are grown. (Chatterjee, 2010) These parents believe it is morally illicit to attain fetal tissue in any manner whether it’s the mother having the abortion, the abortionist performing the act, the researcher or the vaccine manufacturer. Not only do they feel “these parties are all equally guilty of assisting in premeditated murder but they fear these practices can contribute in the encouragement of voluntary abortions, for the intended purpose of making vaccines.” https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/ In response to these concerns, the
Some may oppose vaccinations due to religious reasons, safety concerns, or because they were given misinformation. Nonetheless, these people collectively form the “Anti-Vaccination Movement”. However, not all members of the movement are extremists – out to destroy the science of vaccinations. On one spectrum, there are genuinely concerned parents, who are unsure which side of the battle they should listen to. However, on the other end, there are extreme “anti-vaxxers” who view vaccines as ‘poisonous’ and a violation of human rights.
They can do so with much better ease if some of the children/people present have not taken sufficient precautions such as receiving their vaccinations. It would essentially be apart of distributing a potentially deadly infection if children were not up-to-date with their vaccinations or vaccinated in general. One researcher wrote that “If the decision to refuse vaccination only affected the individual, then refusal would be permissible, but refusing vaccination puts others in harm 's way” (Bailey). By not getting vaccinations, it would not only put oneself in danger, but the people that came into contact with that individual would also be a high risk. The likelihood of either getting or spreading infection is would be substantially greater than if the individual in question would get protected.
This is debated in the article titled “Adoption Bills Put Religion Ahead of Kids" when it states "I'm not approaching this from an equal protection or parental advocacy perspective. I'm approaching it from the perspective of what children need…I know opponents of gay adoption think they're protecting kids by not allowing them to be raised in such a family. But a lot of these kids have no family" (Qtd. Dickerson 2). The situation cannot be looked at with a stubborn attitude, because a children’s life is on the line.
If this was imposed upon the Puritans, no matter what religion was practiced amongst the people, it would have always been separate from the law. Mary Dyer, as well as the the rest of the Quakers, would also not have been institutionally discriminated against because the church would’ve been separate from the state. Additionally, those who died and those who were sent to jail in the Salem Witch Trials would have not been accused of witchcraft, as the church wouldn’t have had enough power to initiate such a mass hysteria because it was religion based and establishment clause states that religion must be kept separated from the