Should vaccination be mandatory
ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY The essay should be between 1000-1200 words long and incorporate evidence from a minimum of 5 sources. At least one source must come from an academic journal. Your Argumentative Essay Submission should: o follow conventions of the genre (structure, language as discussed in class) o use reliable sources with correct in-text citations in APA style. o include an accurate reference list in APA style at the end of your paper. Body Paragraph 1: (175 -200 words) Pro argument (strongest argument that supports your opinion) • Topic sentence that connects to your thesis Support Point 1 & details Support point 2 & details Support point 2 & details Body Paragraph 2: (175 -200 words) Pro argument: (strong argument that supports your opinion) • Topic sentence that connects to your thesis Support Point 1 & details Support point 2 & details Support point 2 & details Body Paragraph 3: 175 -200 Pro argument: (strong argument that supports your opinion) • Topic sentence that connects to your thesis Support Point 1 & details Support point 2 & details Support point 2 & details Body Paragraph 4: 175-200 – Counter-arguments Topic sentence that states there are counter arguments Counter Argument 1 • Brief details that support counter-argument • Rebuttal with sufficient details to make readers trust your position. Counter Argument 2 • Brief details that support counter-argument • Rebuttal with sufficient details to make readers trust your position. CONCLUSION 175-200 • Transition word/phrase to signal the end • Restate your thesis (using different words, same ideas) • Summarize your arguments • Include:- options Suggestion, Opinion, Prediction + include information about vaccination in the UAE (united arab emirates)
Vaccination is a topic of great debate, with significant implications for public health, individual rights, and community well-being. The question of whether vaccination should be mandatory has sparked intense arguments on both sides. In this essay, we will explore the reasons supporting the argument for mandatory vaccinations. We will examine the scientific evidence, societal benefits, and ethical considerations that underpin this position. Immunization has long been regarded as one of the most successful public health interventions in history. It has saved countless lives, reduced the burden of infectious diseases, and led to the eradication or near-elimination of deadly viruses. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that vaccines save 2-3 million lives annually and contribute to increased life expectancy and reduced child mortality rates worldwide. This introduction sets the stage for a comprehensive examination of the compelling pro-arguments for mandatory vaccinations, taking into account the undeniable benefits they offer to public health and society at large.
Pro-Argument: Ensuring Public Health
One of the most compelling arguments in favor of mandatory vaccinations is the unequivocal role they play in ensuring public health. Vaccination programs have a rich history of success in eradicating or substantially reducing the burden of deadly diseases. Smallpox, for instance, was once a global menace responsible for countless deaths and suffering. However, through diligent vaccination campaigns, this dreaded disease was successfully eradicated, representing a monumental achievement in the history of public health. The World Health Organization (WHO) underscores the pivotal role of vaccines in saving 2-3 million lives each year, a testament to their undeniable impact on global health (WHO, 2020). One of the key benefits of vaccination is the creation of herd immunity, which offers protection to the broader population, including those who cannot receive vaccines due to medical contraindications or age. This principle is not only about individual health but is fundamentally rooted in the concept of community protection. When a high percentage of the population is vaccinated, it becomes exceedingly difficult for infectious diseases to spread. The vulnerable members of society, such as infants, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems, are shielded from the threat of vaccine-preventable diseases (Omer & Salmon, 2019). Herd immunity, as a consequence of widespread vaccination, is the cornerstone of preventing the transmission of diseases that could otherwise wreak havoc on communities.
Moreover, mandatory vaccinations have demonstrated their effectiveness in controlling and containing infectious disease outbreaks. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been a recent and stark reminder of the critical role that vaccines play in public health. A study by Bartsch et al. (2020) highlighted the relationship between vaccine coverage rates and COVID-19 transmission. Regions with higher vaccine coverage exhibited lower transmission rates and, consequently, reduced mortality. This research underscores the life-saving potential of mandatory vaccination policies, especially during pandemics and epidemics. In essence, mandatory vaccinations serve as a robust defense mechanism against the resurgence of deadly diseases. They not only protect individuals who receive vaccines but also provide a shield of immunity to the community as a whole. This approach ensures that the well-being of the entire population, including the most vulnerable members, is safeguarded from the threat of infectious diseases. These indisputable public health benefits support the argument for the mandatory administration of vaccines, which, when rigorously implemented, can lead to healthier communities and a reduced burden of preventable illnesses. The case for mandatory vaccinations is not just a matter of individual choice; it is fundamentally about the collective responsibility of preserving public health and well-being.
Pro-Argument: Preventing Disease Resurgence
Another compelling argument in favor of mandatory vaccinations is their pivotal role in preventing the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. The concept of disease resurgence highlights the grave consequences of insufficient vaccination rates within a population. This argument gains support from the alarming trend of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks observed when vaccination rates decline, such as the resurgence of measles in recent years. The Journal of the American Medical Association’s report on global trends in measles vaccination (2019) provides a stark illustration of how declining vaccination rates can lead to the reemergence of once-controlled diseases. Measles, a highly contagious and potentially life-threatening disease, serves as a poignant example. The decline in measles vaccination rates in some regions has led to alarming outbreaks, placing both unvaccinated individuals and those who cannot receive the vaccine at risk. This not only disrupts the lives of those who contract the disease but also places immense pressure on healthcare systems to manage the outbreaks and provide adequate care. Measles outbreaks often result in substantial healthcare costs, not to mention the emotional and physical toll on those affected and their families (The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2019).
The principle of herd immunity, reinforced by the concept of mandatory vaccinations, is paramount in preventing disease resurgence. As a critical proportion of the population becomes vaccinated, it becomes increasingly challenging for infectious diseases to spread, eventually halting their transmission. This protective barrier is particularly essential for individuals who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons or age-related factors. The resurgence of diseases like measles demonstrates the necessity of maintaining high vaccination rates to ensure the continued protection of the community and particularly vulnerable groups (Omer & Salmon, 2019). In this context, mandatory vaccinations serve as a vital public health tool to prevent the reoccurrence of vaccine-preventable diseases. By enforcing compulsory immunization, governments and health authorities can work to maintain vaccination rates at levels that provide the critical shield of herd immunity. This approach is indispensable for preserving the hard-earned gains in disease control and reducing the burden on healthcare systems that would otherwise be overwhelmed by disease outbreaks. Mandatory vaccinations, while sometimes seen as a matter of individual choice, are fundamentally rooted in the responsibility to prevent the resurgence of deadly diseases and protect the overall well-being of communities.
Pro-Argument: Ethical and Societal Responsibility
In addition to the significant public health benefits, mandatory vaccinations also align with a broader ethical and societal responsibility. Protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, including infants, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems, is not merely a matter of choice but a moral obligation. This ethical aspect of mandatory vaccinations has been emphasized by Omer and Salmon (2019) in their discussion on vaccination mandates, where they underscore the importance of shielding the vulnerable from vaccine-preventable diseases. Infants, in particular, are one of the most vulnerable groups in society. Due to age restrictions on certain vaccines, they are unable to receive timely immunization against infectious diseases. Herd immunity, achieved through widespread vaccination, acts as a protective shield for these young individuals who are too young to be immunized. Mandatory vaccinations ensure that infants have a reduced risk of exposure to diseases that can cause severe illness, complications, or even death. This ethical responsibility extends to all members of society who may be immunocompromised or otherwise unable to receive vaccines, as they rely on the collective immunity provided by mandatory vaccination policies to remain safe (Omer & Salmon, 2019).
Furthermore, vaccines play a crucial role in alleviating the suffering and preventing the deaths of countless individuals who might otherwise fall victim to vaccine-preventable diseases. Mandatory vaccinations not only protect individuals from the immediate health risks of diseases like measles, mumps, or polio but also prevent the long-term consequences that these diseases can inflict. The physical, emotional, and financial toll that these diseases can take on individuals and their families is immense. Mandatory vaccination policies ensure that the benefits of vaccines are extended to the entire community, reducing the burden of preventable illnesses and the associated healthcare costs (Omer & Salmon, 2019). The ethical aspect of mandatory vaccinations extends to the broader societal responsibility of preserving public health and well-being. Ensuring the collective safety and health of the population is a fundamental tenet of any just and equitable society. By implementing mandatory vaccination policies, societies demonstrate their commitment to protecting the most vulnerable members and reducing the overall burden of disease. This approach not only serves as an ethical obligation but also as a means to uphold the well-being and quality of life for all individuals within a community. Mandatory vaccinations, therefore, are not solely a matter of personal choice but an expression of the ethical and societal responsibility to safeguard public health and the welfare of society at large.
While the arguments in favor of mandatory vaccinations are compelling, it is important to acknowledge counter-arguments, as they represent valid concerns that need consideration. One of the primary counter-arguments against mandatory vaccinations centers on individual rights and personal freedoms. Some argue that mandatory vaccination policies infringe upon an individual’s right to make medical decisions for themselves and their children. This perspective emphasizes the autonomy and personal liberty of individuals in determining what goes into their bodies, including vaccines. Critics of mandatory vaccinations believe that individuals should have the right to make informed choices about their medical care and those of their children, as emphasized by the principles of autonomy and informed consent. Moreover, concerns regarding vaccine safety and potential side effects are pivotal in the debate against mandatory vaccinations. While vaccines undergo rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness, there remains skepticism among a portion of the population. It is essential to acknowledge the validity of concerns surrounding vaccine safety and side effects, as this skepticism has led to vaccine hesitancy in some communities. For example, the controversy surrounding the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and its alleged link to autism has contributed to hesitancy, despite extensive research debunking this link. Those who advocate for individual choice in vaccination decisions argue that these concerns must be taken seriously and that individuals should have the freedom to make choices based on their understanding of vaccine safety (Omer & Salmon, 2019).
Another counter-argument revolves around the potential misuse of government power. Some individuals and groups are concerned that mandatory vaccination policies might be a slippery slope leading to broader government intrusion into healthcare decisions. This argument asserts that once governments can compel individuals to receive vaccines, it sets a precedent for future health policies that might infringe upon personal freedoms and autonomy. The fear of government overreach and the erosion of personal liberties can result in resistance to mandatory vaccination policies and a lack of trust in public health institutions. This lack of trust was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, with resistance to mask mandates and vaccination efforts, leading to public health challenges (Omer & Salmon, 2019). Furthermore, religious and philosophical exemptions represent another counter-argument against mandatory vaccinations. In some cases, individuals hold sincere religious or philosophical beliefs that conflict with vaccination. Mandating vaccinations, in their view, infringes upon their freedom to practice their religion or uphold their philosophical beliefs. Critics argue that respecting these deeply held convictions is crucial in a diverse and pluralistic society. While religious and philosophical exemptions have been allowed in some jurisdictions, these exemptions may undermine the effectiveness of mandatory vaccination policies, particularly in achieving herd immunity.
Critics of mandatory vaccination policies also contend that these policies disproportionately affect marginalized communities and lower-income individuals who may face barriers to accessing vaccines. They argue that instead of mandating vaccines, resources should be directed towards addressing these systemic barriers, making vaccines more accessible to all. In this perspective, mandatory vaccinations are seen as a punitive measure rather than an equitable solution to public health challenges. It is important to acknowledge these concerns and work towards addressing healthcare disparities and improving vaccine access in a fair and equitable manner. While the pro-arguments for mandatory vaccinations are strong and grounded in public health and ethical considerations, the counter-arguments raise valid concerns related to individual rights, vaccine safety, government intrusion, religious and philosophical beliefs, and healthcare disparities. The debate over mandatory vaccinations is complex and requires a delicate balance between protecting public health and respecting individual liberties. The challenge lies in finding a middle ground that upholds public health while addressing the concerns and rights of those who are skeptical or hesitant about mandatory vaccination policies. Public health authorities must continue to engage with communities, provide clear information, and work to build trust to navigate this complex terrain.
In conclusion, the argument for mandatory vaccinations is rooted in the principles of public health, disease prevention, and ethical responsibility. Vaccination is a proven method to protect communities from deadly diseases and ensure the health of vulnerable individuals. While counter-arguments exist, they should be considered in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the benefits of mandatory vaccinations. Striking a balance between individual rights and public health is a complex task, but the overarching goal should be to safeguard public well-being while respecting personal freedoms. In the United Arab Emirates, as in many other nations, the choice to make vaccination mandatory is an essential aspect of public health policy, and evidence strongly supports its continuation. The UAE has made significant strides in promoting vaccination, recognizing its vital role in protecting the health of its citizens and residents, and this commitment to public health is likely to continue in the future.
Bartsch, S. M., O’Shea, K. J., Ferguson, M. C., & Bottazzi, M. E. (2020). Vaccine Efficacy Needed for a COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine to Prevent or Stop an Epidemic as the Sole Intervention. American Journal of Epidemiology, 189(8), 852-860.
Omer, S. B., & Salmon, D. A. (2019). Orenstein and Hinman’s Vaccines. In Vaccination Mandates: The Public Health Imperative and Individual Rights (pp. 142-152). Elsevier.
The Journal of the American Medical Association. (2019). Global Trends in Measles Vaccination.
World Health Organization. (2020). Immunization: Key Facts.
FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)
- Why should vaccination be mandatory, and what are the primary arguments in favor of it?
Answer: Mandatory vaccination is essential for public health because it ensures high vaccination rates, which, in turn, create herd immunity, protecting the entire community, including vulnerable individuals. The primary arguments in favor of mandatory vaccinations include safeguarding public health, preventing disease resurgence, and fulfilling ethical and societal responsibilities. These measures help control infectious diseases, save lives, and protect the most vulnerable members of society, such as infants, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems.
- Are there any ethical considerations associated with mandatory vaccinations?
Answer: Yes, ethical considerations are significant when discussing mandatory vaccinations. Mandatory vaccinations align with ethical principles of protecting vulnerable populations and preventing suffering and death from preventable diseases. By achieving herd immunity through widespread vaccination, societies fulfill a moral obligation to shield those who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons or age-related factors.
- What are the potential drawbacks and counter-arguments against mandatory vaccinations?
Answer: Counter-arguments against mandatory vaccinations include concerns about individual rights and personal freedoms, vaccine safety and side effects, potential misuse of government power, and religious or philosophical objections. Critics argue that mandatory vaccinations infringe upon individual autonomy, can lead to government overreach, and may undermine religious or philosophical beliefs. Addressing these concerns while upholding public health is a complex challenge.
- How have mandatory vaccinations contributed to public health, particularly during disease outbreaks like COVID-19?
Answer: Mandatory vaccinations have played a vital role in public health by preventing the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. They have been particularly effective during disease outbreaks like COVID-19 by reducing transmission rates and mortality. These policies are instrumental in protecting communities and controlling the spread of infectious diseases, especially in times of pandemics and epidemics.
- What is the role of vaccination policies in the United Arab Emirates, and how have they evolved to address public health concerns?
Answer: In the United Arab Emirates, vaccination policies play a critical role in public health. The UAE has taken significant steps to promote vaccination, recognizing its importance in protecting the health of its citizens and residents. These policies have evolved to address public health concerns by ensuring high vaccination rates, preventing disease outbreaks, and protecting vulnerable individuals. The UAE continues to prioritize vaccination as a key element of its public health strategy.