Mandatory Vaccination: An Unqualified Defence (Essay Sample)

CRITICAL CASE ANALYSIS MAKING USE OF A PAPER BY:
R. Pierik, “Mandatory vaccination: An unqualified defence”
Student Name:
Student ID:
Date:
Introduction
Immunisation is efficient and at time inefficient. When taken from the perspective of ensuring increased public health it becomes an efficient policy. Looking at it form a religious as well as a human right perspective, it is an inefficient policy.
Exposition of the argument presented in the essay
The analysis conducted by Pierik (2018) was with an aim of assessing vulnerability of vaccination. Consequently, guiding to the obligation of the government on the declining rates of vaccination. The main argument of the writer was that vaccination should not be for parents to decide but the government should make it mandatory (Pierik, 2018, p.385). This would be a counter to the declining rates of vaccination.
The author recognises that children are a part of the society and thus should not be left to suffer. In addition, the government should ensure universal health and good immune. Vaccines are meant to ensure that all are safe which leads the importance of community vaccination. The paper argues that vaccination should be mandatory for infectious children disease especially those that could be taken care of in two years of an infant life. (Pierik, 2018, p.382).
Outbreaks like with measles are completely dangerous as it can kill and can also be spread very fast. In addition, it could lead to exposure to other diseases as well as expose children co disabilities. Therefore, vaccination should not be parent directed but a mandatory obligation (Pierik, 2018, p.382). Also vaccination mandatory reaction is supported by the author on bases of avoiding risk of exposure. In addition, it is a government objective to ensure that all persons are safe and free from infection thus have to ensure high immunity through vaccination as a public health policy (Pierik, 2018, p.386).
The author concludes that due to paradoxes that may arise making vaccination efficient policy as well as inefficient policy, it then becomes an unqualified mandatory vaccination against measles. The conclusion made is right, this is as support by the author who argues that the two major objections to vaccinations could be taken care of increasing the willingness of parent to participate in vaccination. The argument is support by the government main agenda of ensuring public health as well as safety for all children (Pierik, 2018, p.395).
Critical evaluation of the view, explaining one potential objection to the view
In the vaccination argument, it is realised that the impulsive laws are not always efficient in dealing with health issues. Anti-vaccination movement have questioned the need for community vaccination which a set of high dangers posed to individuals than benefits presented. This has been wide spread through different social platforms making a lot of parent’s perceptions on the need for vaccination change. Consequently, even in an event of an outbreak, like the measles outbreak in year 2015, people were not vaccinated leading to a high rate of outbreak.
Therefore, the mandatory vaccination goes against parent rights for religion and conscience (Pierik, 2018, p.390). This is because they are not left to make the vaccination decision for their children. The children have no decision making capacity leaving it to the parents from which their right is taken away (Pierik, 2018, p.385). Vaccination is one way of parent being responsible as well as assuring their children a good life.
Own reaction to the fitness of the view in (a)
It had been recognised that vaccines are good and safe for people. Consequently leading to increased public confidence on the need for vaccination. Public health related matter are realised by their ability to reach out to a wide respondents. Making use of children vaccination, it is possib