Vaccine refusal is the intentional rejection of the use of vaccines by an individual, or other individuals by themselves, their guardian, next of kin, or the government. Due to the measurable immense benefits of vaccines, it is the general assumption that their use will be widely supported and publicised, especially by governments of nations that are constantly challenged by one health problem or another. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and, in fact, in this Twenty-First Century, vaccine refusal is still a major challenge being faced in the administration of vaccines, and in the eradication of infectious diseases. There is no doubt that the use of vaccines is highly advantageous. The eradication of smallpox in the year 1979, is perhaps one of the greatest highlights in vaccinology.
Though many vaccines have triggered skepticism and even complete avoidance, most notably the Vaccine-Autism debate, the resistance to the HPV vaccine goes beyond that of other vaccines**. When questioned about their mistrust, parents have cited the young age at which children are vaccinated and moral concerns***. However, it is very important that the vaccine is administered to children who have not be exposed to the virus for it to be most effective and provide the greatest protection against HPV**. The moral concerns of getting the vaccine is stems from the thought pre-marital sex is immoral and parents would like for their children to wait for marriage*. Even so, some 46.8% of American high schoolers have reported having sex, with 5.6% reportedly having intercourse before the age of 13**.
Through the several stories in the book, the parents did observe the symptoms after their child received vaccination. Even though that is not evidence that vaccines do cause autism, it is easier to blame vaccines and determine a cause for their child’s illness. What I still find hard to comprehend, is even though it has been proven through several studies that vaccines do not cause autism, the activists still stand their ground and refuse to accept the truth. That is extremely unreasonable. All the activists are doing is start a flaming fire.
Several factors contribute to the rejection of obligatory procedures of the HPV vaccine. Refusal influences include the sexually transmitted nature of HPV, concerns about the safety and efficacy of the new vaccine, and the perception that the vaccine manufacturer was overly involved in the policy process. Individuals argue HPV is not contracted through casual contact in the classroom setting, the vaccine diverges from other mandatory vaccines, and mandate supporters had difficulty debating denial of school entry contingent on proof of vaccination.
As mention in the straits times article by Mr Darius Lee, most of the parents think that adolescents are not mature enough to make decisions during emotional state and make choices without thinking about long-term consequences of their action. Furthermore, parents feel that parental consent is important for abortion as it is an invasive surgical procedure and parents can provide more medical details of the child whom is not mindful of their condition. The issue of abortion is impossible to solve. As a healthcare providers, they are encouraged to do good for the patients but due to certain circumstances they are unable to do good and required to do no harm to the patients. In Singapore Nursing Board under Standard of Practice Statement 3.6, to have critical and reflective thinking to improve the quality of nursing care.
In a medical article, Baeyens informs doctors that parents and children need to become educated on the vaccination benefits because the tendency of unvaccinated individuals to be diagnosed with a preventable disease is high. The reason for people not getting vaccinated is the lack of communication between the public health and social workers about the benefits. Baeyens states that, “Many of the reasons... for not getting vaccinated are based upon ignorance of the true facts...or unfounded fears.” People are not getting vaccinated because they are not aware of the potential risks or benefits that they pose. Communication between these people and the health care services would provide information about immunization which could lead to more people accepting it. With the information provided, people would be educated about the vaccination
My brain just works differently than most other people’s. When people talk about vaccines and autism it makes me feel like I’m not a person but a ‘bad result.’ It reminds me that no one wants a kid like me and parents will risk their kid’s lives and everyone else’s just to make sure their kid doesn’t turn out like me.” Which makes me think not only the scientific part of this debate matters but also the human side to this too. There are three sides to this debate. The parents who don’t want to have an autistic child, the parents who do have an autistic child and the autistic children themselves. To some parents autism is the worst thing that can happen to their children.
Brian Deer 's article implements a subjective tone when confronting A.J Wakefield 's research. This tone of approach varies from common medical research journals because the arguments do not simply depend on factual based assertions. Like most research journals, any implications are supported by academic/peer reviewed sources. Brian Deer 's article however includes evidence and research collected through his own work; he actually questions and interviews the parents of the children diagnosed with this so called "new syndrome"(Deer 201). The key thing to note here is that all evidence collected on his own is likely to include biases.
When considering vaccination, people have numerous viewpoints, which is a result of different cultural understanding and values. These social interpretations on vaccination develop from a wide range of religious teachings, and most distinctly skepticism of vaccines. This mistrust towards vaccination has been around for as long as vaccines have, and are prevalent to this day, and this can mainly be attributed to the parents of young children, who for one reason or another have made up their minds. However, this becomes an issue when a child dies from something that is completely preventable such as whooping cough. For example, in 2013 in Wisconsin 300 children under age 1 came down with whooping cough, 177 of them less than 6 months old.
The scientific evidence would have to do with something about how the brain is wired and that when someone is trying to ignore the truth they actually have no idea like we would like to believe we do. The evidence would have to be on a biological evidence and that would change the way I think about my experience. If a study came out and said that all it was a result based off of observation I don't think I would fully buy in at all. In reality though, I know a lot of the studies and reasons for what happened to me and my family while living with and denying, and then realizing my father's addiction because this is part of what my parents have taught us as our family has healed. My parents did an excellent job at making sure to at least treat me, because I was old enough, like an adult and educated me on how this has affected me and all of the other things that come with growing up with a parent as an addict.
In the Ted talk on "Battling Bad Science", the speaker Ben Goldacre tackles the lack of critical analysis by the public of scientific claims by debunking popular medical claims and exposing methods of borderline falsifying evidence behind claims. Science is a unique subject varying from all others in many rights, particularly when it comes to the critical analysis of its claims by the general public. Unlike politics, law, history, etc., science is given huge leeway to make uncontested claims by the public, where as in other fields their claims are scrutinized before being accepted. On the contrary, people willingly expect dodgy “scientific” claims which often contradict themselves. Although Golacre went over many sketchy scientific claims,