Impact of Non-Compliance with Mandatory Immunizations - Coursework Example

Impact of Non-Compliance with Mandatory Immunizations Introduction Despite the remarkable development and advanced in human medicine, the issue of vaccination has always remained pertinent. Whether to vaccinate or not remains a controversial issue with medical experts, researchers, policymakers, parents and other policy makers taking sides. Whereas it is not a mandatory obligation for parents to vaccinate their children, vaccination is more of a moral obligation especially considering the health issues that would face the society in cases of failed vaccination programs. Although vaccination is flagged as a possible cause of health complications among other factors, the benefits of vaccination seem to far outweigh failure to vaccinate both ethically and morally. Issues of vaccination spread across all age groups. However, children are usually the focal point. Success of vaccination in children arguably affects the health of the general society and of future generations too. This paper seeks to support that people that refuse to immunize their children are putting other children at risk of illness and death. The discourse of vaccination has primarily been shaped by the need to protect the population against diseases such as small pox, polio, and measles. It is undeniable that vaccination has saved the world from these deadly diseases. At present, individuals can be vaccinated against many diseases. The number of people succumbing to these diseases has significantly decreased. Presently, deaths due to such diseases are insignificant and in rare cases, found in third world countries. However, such overwhelming fete in the world of human medicine has only been made possible through rigorous research, standard tests, and continual improvement of vaccines. Additionally, methods used for vaccination have also improved with time. However, there remains an element of health risk in vaccines. This is the primary cause of disagreement in children vaccination. Many parents feel that children ought not to be vaccinated citing the accompanied risks. It is worth noting that parents have the freewill and ultimate authority over what happens to their children. Bestowed with nature of care, parents are assumed to be acting in the best interest of the children when they decline vaccination. It is seen as ethically right to allow parents reject children vaccination if they are deeply convinced that vaccination will cause them harm. However, it is more rational to base such arguments on true and authentic information. If parent’s conviction is inconsistent with the available medical information about the same, then they can be assumed to be exposing their children to unwarranted diseases and infections. Although it is not mandatory, at least legally, to vaccinate children, parents have a moral obligation to protect their children from harmful diseases through vaccination. Failure to vaccinate children is actually a double tragedy. It exposes children to diseases and infections such as polio, small pox, measles, and chickenpox, among others. Besides the children getting sick, they become a health hazard to the rest of population. Therefore, people that refuse to immunize their children are practically putting other children at risk of illness and death. Whereas there is increased liberalization in the modern society, the same has also interfered with the way the society interacts with the government. In the light of liberalization, parents seek to use their autonomy and liberty to make important decisions concerning their lives and those of their children. Issues of ethical concern, more often than not, arise when the government and science in general, tries to interfere with religious or philosophical beliefs. Whereas it is the moral obligation of the government to safeguard the safety of the population by appropriate means such as vaccination, the population has the right to exercise freedom of liberty and religion. However, the exercise of such freedom is limited to the welfare of the general population. For instance, parents rejecting vaccination of their children due to religious or philosophical beliefs, do so at the expense of the rest of the population. This is the primary reason why the government at times comes with policies to vaccine all children as a mandatory exercise. At times, health of the general population takes precedence over personal liberty. An overwhelming issue of ethical concern regarding vaccination comes between medical profession and the parents. Whereas the medical fraternity understands the dire need for protection of parent’s autonomy, it also tries to balance the same with beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Doctors have the moral and ethical obligation to act in the best interest of the patients, especially when dealing with children. With deep understanding of the health benefits of vaccination and associated health complications on lack of the same, they try to advice the parent to have their children vaccinated. However, parents still have the ultimate authority to accept the decision or not. Therefore, refusal to vaccination becomes an unjustified course action in medical terms. Ideally, “The benefits of such interventions lie at the level of populations, whilst any risks of harm are borne by the individual participants in the program” (Kling, 2009). Although the effects of vaccination sometimes take time to be noticeable, when they do, the effects are far reaching. Children are not able to protect themselves against opportunistic diseases. This constrains the child, health facilities, and most importantly, immediate population through transmission of these diseases. The medical practitioners may not have the ultimate hand in administering vaccine even if they feel it is in the best interest of the child since it does not fall under life-threatening situation. Therefore, when parents fail, they fail everybody involved. More interesting is the fact that parents fail to vaccinate their children claiming that it is a ploy between the health system and multinational companies to market their products. They more often interpret media campaigns as a social marketing campaigns aimed at stealing their hard-earned money in pretense of safeguarding the interests of the public. Whereas there is a marketing aspect in campaign for vaccination, it should be understood that the government has the upper hand in ensuring safety of the population through effective vaccination, especially for children. Actually, most of the vaccination services are offered free or at least subsidized. It is undeniable that the government has failed once or twice to guarantee the safety of vaccines. Actually, there are cases where vaccine initiative had to be stopped due to discovery of associated health hazard. For instance, “In 1976 the vaccination program against swine influenza in the USA was stopped because it was thought to be associated with a concomitant increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome” (Kling, 2009). Although parents may be ethically justified to reject vaccination based on such incidences, it would be more rational to vaccinate children and leave the monitoring to the government and the medical industry to scrutinize the authenticity and safety of vaccination programs since they are far much informed. Parents taking the issue on their own hands only pose a health risk to their own children and more often than not, the rest of the population. It is however, undeniable that parents do not have absolute authority over their children lives. During the medical case involving MMR controversy, it was evident that parents actually have a limited authority over the life of their children and, with extension, life of the general population. BMA Medical Ethics Committee posited, “Parents are accountable both to the society and to their children for the decisions they make on their children’s behalf and there is a limit to the risk to which parents can expose their children” (British Medical Association, 2012, p. 829). Irrefutably, vaccination programs top the priority list for the most cost effective health tools disposable to the government primarily because the benefits far outweigh the risks, at least for the general population. Parents who fail to vaccinate their children therefore, jeopardize the most viable tool available to the government. It is also worth noting with concern that vaccination issues not only involve failure to vaccinate but also encompass the type of vaccine to administer as well as effectiveness of the vaccination process. More clearly, vaccination program for children succeeds as far as vaccination guidelines are followed exactly. More often, parents seek to vaccinate their children selectively with the vaccine they feel, for one reason or the other, will be most appropriate. This has often been flagged as one of the primary reasons of failed vaccination programs, which exposes children to unwarranted health risk. Whereas parents could wish to be articulate enough to decide which vaccines to give and how to use them, the success of the vaccination program lies in the scientific fact mostly advocated by the government. Therefore, failure to follow the stipulated guidelines during vaccination exposes the children to health hazards and consequently, the overall population. Overwhelming evidence was seen during the MMR controversy that caused vaccination coverage in UK to drop to 80%. It was reported, “In 2006, the UK recorded the first death from acute measles in 14 years” (British Medical Association, 2012, p. 829). This practically implies that parents’ decision on vaccination has a direct correlation on the children’s health and more importantly, the health of the rest of the population. However, exceptional cases do arise when children become allergic to certain vaccines. In such cases, medical advice from relevant health practitioners should be sought. Conclusion Overwhelming evidence supports that failure of parents to vaccinate their children jeopardizes the children’s health and more importantly the health of the general population. Although most nations do not have legal demands for parents to vaccinate their children, it is more of a moral and ethical obligation for parents to vaccinate their children appropriately and effectively for the good of everybody. References British Medical Association. (2012). Medical Ethics Today: The Bmas Handbook of Ethics and Law. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kling, S. (2009). Vaccination and Ethical Issues. Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology, 22, (4). Read More