We the people deserve the right to be free. We the people deserve the right of religion. We the people deserve the right to refuse to force children to get medical vaccinations before attending a public school. For decades, the altercation between whether children should be vaccinated or not has been debated between many parents, teachers, and even federal level officials. Should the United States put public safety before civil rights? Practicing religious beliefs is an essential freedom provided in the country and has a major impact on the foundation of the United States. The enforcement of vaccinations in children is not constitutional; therefore, parents and children have the right to refuse vaccinations for it is against some religious …show more content…
Some parents seek to opt out of these requirements do to “religious, medical or philosophical reasons”(O 'Neil). Each parent can refuse the pressure put on from society for their child to get vaccinated. Schools should have the right to encourage the act of getting an immunization but do not have the right to discourage and refuse children who do not believe in medicine. In the first amendment of the Constitution it allows any citizens to practice the “free exercise of religion”(Cornell University), so forcing a child to take part in the medical standards that are against their or their parents belief system strips the family from their constitutional rights. The foundation of America is built on having freedom. Not allowing for the practice of religion or certain beliefs limits American’s ability to remain free from government control. Each parent or child who refuses has the “constitutional right to do so” (Karst) and this refusal is validated because adults with children have “parental rights”(Field). When a set religion or belief system establishes that they are against medical vaccinations, they have the right to argue. No established religion is set in the United States so informing a family that a child must be vaccinated pressures against their belief system; consequently, the performance of this action is purely unconstitutional. Schools requiring immunizations …show more content…
The argument that this will increase the susceptibility of sickness in other children attending schools. Although, this isn’t necessarily incorrect, if other students are vaccinated they will be immune to the virus already. Viruses are less of a threat to the children who are vaccinated but pose more of a threat to the children who have not been vaccinated and those parents who choose not to vaccinate are “aware of the health risks”(Dubbo Daily Liberal) that it poses. This act is a choice built on their belief system which is protected by the Constitution. The only issue raised from the lack of immunization is considered to be public safety. In the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts the argument began whether public safety or civil rights were more important. The case dealt with “equating invasions of the body with the general run of restrictions on liberty”(Karst). It dragged for years because of its importance for civil liberties have the right to trump public safety in some situations, this being one of them. Families have the right to stand up with their beliefs that contradict with getting vaccinated. This case proved that civil rights are important, not only privately, but also in a public setting. Moreover, civil rights in terms of vaccination can outweigh public
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.
California is the only state to require, by law, everyone to receive a vaccination. There are 47 states states allow adults and children to be exempt from receiving vaccinations because of their beliefs. There are 19 states that allow a person not to get vaccinated based on their philosophical reasons. If there is a family that believes they do not need to be vaccinated because they do not think the vaccine is safe, they do not have to get vaccinated. If a family’s religious beliefs go against getting vaccinated, they do not have to get vaccinated.
Mandatory vaccinations eliminate personal freedoms, and could violate religious beliefs. Also, many people are very skeptical about the effectiveness of the vaccination versus personal hygiene. In an Indiana hospital in early 2012 eight workers were fired due to declining a flu vaccination (Farwell 2016). Lawsuits have even been filed over this dilemma, and if people feel strongly enough to sue over it, then hospitals should see that mandatory vaccinations are causing more harm than help.
Given that the parent has the complete right to decide for their newborns (since newborns are not capable of making the decision for themselves), should that individual be allowed to not vaccinate their newborns? Mill would most likely respond that the individual is free to not vaccinate their child unless it harms other people. Before we ultimately discern Mill’s position on whether society has authority over the individual’s decision in this case of vaccination, we must explain why there are anti-vaccination groups prevalent in societies today. The main issue anti-vaccination groups have with vaccines is that anti-vaccination groups believe that the substance called thimerosal, which is found in trace amounts, contributes to the development
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
Case 1: Mandatory Measles vaccination: 1- What are the values, ethical principles, and rights that come into conflict in this case? First, let us go through measles, measles is a viral infectious disease, which is a highly contagious and can spread fast from person to person via air droplets and it can lead to many complications, disability or even death. Therefore, the emergence of an outbreak of measles in any area (a historic region in Spain) must be considered as an emergency public health problem, which can affect the whole country if not prevented.
News Flash! Recent outbreaks of what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) call vaccine-preventable diseases demonstrate the effects of the anti-vaccination movement. “Antivaxxers” as they’ve come to be called, as noticed on this author's Facebook page, are a population of parents who make a conscious decision not to vaccinate their children. The goal of this paper is to shed some light on the Antivaxxers, their arguments for choosing not to vaccinate their children, and research that proves the Antivaxxers’ theories are wrong. After all, vaccines aren’t something to be concerned about, they are proven to be effective.
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. Hendrix points out that pediatric vaccination, or the policies surrounding vaccination requirements for children, can “span several public health domains, including those of policymakers,
Required Immunity 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.
Vaccines are like traffic lights; they ensure the safety of the public, be in heavily crowded areas, like schools, or densely trafficked roads. Traffic lights only work when all people follow the rules. If a car runs a red light, the car runs the risk of killing innocent pedestrians who are complying with the prescribed rules. Vaccines, if not utilized by most people, are ineffective. Even though some parents are concerned over the safety of vaccines, children who go to public schools should not be granted exemptions because vaccines are necessary to prevent outbreaks, children who do not receive vaccines are at risk of disease, and medically compromised children rely on vaccines to prevent disease.
Many people may think that vaccination is a bad thing, that instead of preventing it causes illness, that is not natural. Natural or not, there are many reasons as to why we should vaccinate us and the younger generation. Most of the time children don’t like vaccination because it hurt, but is the responsibility of a parent to seek the wellbeing of his or her child. Vaccination it’s a preventive measure of various diseases. Unfortunately, things like the anti-vaccination movement, the misinformation on the Internet, and the believe that vaccination causes more damage than is worth, have led our society to think that it’s right not to vaccinate.
As in today’s society, “all 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory federal vaccination laws exist” says CDC. If vaccinations are a requirement, then why not make it a law? Well, this contradicts the bill of rights of having the freedom of speech. Not everyone are vaccination lovers, yet they still choose to take it when they feel socially pressured to do it. Culturally, people will follow others if it looks like majority of them are doing the action.
In every case where compulsory vaccinations were challenged, the Court upheld their constitutionality because they do not infringe on any rights. Notably, in Prince v. Massachusetts, the Court ruled that mandatory vaccines do not violate freedom of religion (Chemerinsky, Goodwin 606). In fact, the Court ruled religious exemption clauses as unlawful, since they only apply to students of a recognized denomination, as concluded in Brown v. Stone and Davis v. State (Chemerinsky, Goodwin 607-608). Furthermore, mandatory vaccines do not infringe on religious freedom because, “no matter how much a law burdens religious practices it is constitutional under [Employment v.] Smith so long as it does not single out religious behavior for punishment and was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion” (Chemerinsky, Goodwin 609).
Although all public schools require immunizations, there are still children in the schools whose religion exempts the use of vaccinations. The goal of this paper is
I would have to side with the requirement that vaccinations should be mandatory because it is not just the health of a single individual but the health of the entire human civilization. As a Christian, I believe that vaccinations help our health. They are something that God has given us. We should use them to our best knowledge to help our body. Although, I see the reasoning behind not requiring vaccinations.