The Debate over Vaccinations has Reached a Fever Pitch (Essay Sample)

The Debate over Vaccinations has Reached a Fever Pitch

Personal choice or freedom is one of the fundamental rights secured by the U.S. constitution. The right of an individual to do what is right and safe for them is unconditionally guaranteed. This reality is expressed by the freedom to choose what to eat and the medication to take. However, the freedom of individuals has been exercised while taking into consideration the rights and freedom of other individuals. A good example is a vaccination for disease control, an issue that often requires overlooking personal choice for the sake of public safety. This reality, which is a dilemma, is represented by the case of Smiths, who argue against the vaccination of their newborn baby. While their conviction of going natural is safe secured by the constitution, their actions of not vaccinating their infant put the other infants and baby of contracting other diseases, a risk that had to be solved by having Ana vaccinated nevertheless.
Briefly, the case under study involves parents who decided to go natural in their way of the upbringing of their young one, Ana. The parents have strongly stated their wish to use every natural ingredient that enters Ana’s system. The decision implied that the necessary vaccines and immunization for infants would not apply to Ana’s case. Further, the decision was informed by fear of the belief that autism-causing vaccines would tamper with the infant’s system instead of rectifying it. As such, Ana would not be vaccinated, a personal choice that is fully guaranteed by the law. However, besides the decision not be scientifically proven, it puts the health of other infants at risk. That is, infants’ public health and its related safety are jeopardized by the decision to have some members of society not vaccinated. Further, ignoring the vaccine means that Ana will be prohibited from accessing public services, such as going to school.
I strongly hold that the Smith should vaccinate their child, as failing to do so would cause a lot of confusion. In regard to that, the dilemma that the Smiths’ case can be resolved by considering evidenced-based vaccine, or simply that which the family has privately confirmed its safety now that trusting the federal government’s one is quite hard for now. This solution will involve Smith taking their time, with the help of a private medical expert, to ascertain the safety of the vaccine whose safety is not certain (Rus & Groselj, 2021; Rus & Grošelj, 2021). This approach, which is likely to be costly, would require collaboration with federal medical officers in the process of verifying the safety of the vaccine as per the Smiths’ wish. Similarly, Smith could consider taking the following the federal procedure of verifying the safety of vaccines until they are confident of what they are giving their child as a vaccine. Again, this way of resolving the issue could mean that the Smiths will work extra hard to have their worries dealt with more specifically.