Examining Infant Vaccination and America’s Diverse Perspectives Aaron Lawson
Mira Costa College
Professor Thao L. Ha, Ph.D
Examining Infant Vaccination and America’s Diverse Perspectives
Throughout the United States, infant vaccination continues to be a highly controversial and pressured decision that parents must face upon their child’s birth. In order to maintain complete objectivity, multiple viewpoints must be critically analyzed and explored in an unbiased manner; therefore, I will examine the positives and negatives regarding adolescent vaccinations, provide general viewpoints and solutions to the debate about which infants should receive vaccinations, and supply the data required to support the arguments relevant to each side. The first viewpoint suggests that infant vaccinations should be heavily regulated due to alleged medical ramifications and adverse side effects. Many Americans support this ideology, including parents and various physicians who firmly believe that infant vaccinations induce medical complications instead of preventing them. The second viewpoint is known as selective vaccination, which is a supported by most American parents and various doctors, who affirm that parents deserve the right of authority over their child because the child’s best interest trumps obligatory immunization. The third viewpoint suggests that some U.S. parents and medical professionals advocate mandatory vaccination in order to protect infants from illnesses; thus, ultimately striving for widespread public health.
Infant vaccinations should be heavily regulated due to alleged medical ramifications. Parents whose infants have suffered from an alleged adverse vaccination side effect affirm vaccines lead to medical complications, and therefore the parents should become thoroughly educated on the procedure, regulate the quantity, and refuse to put their infant in harms way. Haugen and Musser (2012) suggest that citizens required to vaccinate their children are forcefully putting their children at risk of possibly developing certain syndromes, disorders, and diseases. When Haugen and Musser (2012) state, “vaccines are being overused, resulting in more cases of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other neurological problems in children”, they are claiming that higher quantities of vaccines being administered results in more infants developing adverse medical complications. If more parents educate themselves on the health consequences vaccinations might cause their child, then perhaps parents will critically analyze the importance of the vaccines. According to Haugen and Musser (2012), understanding the health risks before vaccinating an infant will raise awareness in parents, will protect children who don’t medically qualify, and will contribute to reducing debilitating health disorders. When they noted that parents are “mobilizing against the state policy” (Haugen & Musser, 2012), they imply that many citizens will not be compliant with the mandatory policy of immunization, will congregate together, and will petition the policy to have it reversed. If parents extensively research the vaccination process, some of them will have a better understanding and will be able to make an educated decision for their child’s health.
While Haugen and Musser (2012) rely on logic to support their claims, others rely on data to restate the importance of understanding the vaccination process and differentials. In his expert testimony, Dr. Jack Rabin (2012) acknowledges how autism has not been directly linked to vaccines; however, he proposes that the amount of vaccinations administered to children has astoundingly increased, which should be extensively analyzed and administered in increments over time. When Rabin (2012) notes that 60 years ago “doctors gave only eight vaccinations to infants five to six months old, and now there are 29 vaccinations given at birth”, he asserts that vaccinations are...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document