Opel, a professor in The Department of Bioethics and Humanities at The University of Washington, and Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at The University of Washington, address the moral and health related reasons that personal belief exemptions should exist without mandation. However, throughout this argument there are several logical falicies. The first found in their work is that personal belief exemptions are claimed by citizens without proof of philosophical belief. Along with this fact, Opel and Diekema also predicate that personal belief exemptions are taken out of convenience for the consumer (142). Although citizens uphold the right to freedom, it is selfish and morally wrong for parents to endanger others by not vaccinating their children. Not only is this decision immorraly incorrect without philosophical reasoning, but it is too frequently taken out of convenience. Although Opel and Diekema pose abstract ideas regarding personal belief exemptions, the concept that these exemptions are taken without question is frightening for America’s youth. Due to this fact, Opel and Diekema indirectly support that there must be more restrictions upon personal belief …show more content…
The effects this decision has on this child’s life is tremendous. Not only does this decision affect his life negatively in a social light, but it is also dangerous for the child’s health. In this particular story the parents believe that good health and nutrition will keep away the deadly measles disease. However, with further research, it is not wise to assume such things. For example, in March of 1922, at least eighty children died from the effects of the measles in one week. Henceforth, when deciding whether pediatric immunizations are necessary it is important to consider the facts instead of relying on a new nutritional diet. Although some parents might be concerned with the side effects related to mandated vaccines, the benefits definitely out-weigh the