Assignment 3: Vaccine Wars

Summary: The video discussed the controversy surrounding vaccinations, particularly the MMR vaccination. There are pockets of anti-vaccination areas where many parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children out of fear of vaccine-related mental disabilities or allergies and because many feel that they are unnecessary. In particular, the debate really began with claims of parents that the MMR vaccine which is federally required was causing children to develop autism. Critics claimed that the mercury preservative caused the intestines to secrete harmful bacteria that in turn caused autism. They claim that vaccines definitely carry a significant risk of mental disorders and should not be required or even recommended until they are made safe. Scientific research has shown these claims to be false in regards to the MMR causing autism but are unsure whether there is truly a link or not. The ethics of non-vaccination is between vaccination for the greater good (herd immunity) or vaccination as a strictly personal choice.

1. Did the video influence the way you think about vaccinations? Why?

The video made me more of an advocate for vaccines because it explained the public health position of vaccinations as the parent's social duty for the society as a whole instead of vaccinations as a strictly personal choice. I consider vaccinations as both duty to securing the safety of my child but also the safety of the children in my community now. However, I am more aware of the possible risks after seeing the large number of parents who claim that their child's mental disorder was caused by vaccines. I don't think researchers have yet disproved that and thus the risk of a vaccinated child developing mental disorders, despite how miniscule it is, should still be taken into account.

2. What is herd immunity? Define the term and explain how it relates to the public health importance of vaccinations.

Herd immunity is the protection a child in a community of vaccinated people receives from diseases not from direct immunization but from everyone else being immunized already. Herd immunities underlines how vaccinations carry a different set of bioethics. Vaccinations cannot be personal decisions because those personal decisions effect everyone in the community. They therefore need to be treated with more importance and sense of obligation than other personal medical decisions.

3. In what ways is vaccination different from other types of personal health decisions? Who should be involved in deciding whether children receive a specific vaccine?

As said in the previous question, vaccinations are different because the personal decision of choosing to vaccinate or not vaccinate does not just affect one's child but instead the child and other people in the community. Ideally in an ethical world, the community that is affected, which would include the parent, would be involved in deciding whether children are immunized. But that is not a practical policy. Practically speaking, I think it's quite appropriate for the government to require parents to make the choice to vaccinate their children because it isn't fair to others to be exposed to diseases because of the choice of one person.

4. Describe several reasons why children might not receive the recommended immunizations. Consider reasons that originate from the patient/parent, the physician, and the healthcare system.

One reason would be the parents refuse because they decide that the risk of their child becoming autistic is not worth protecting them from diseases that they likely will not contract. The patient may have illnesses that prevent them from being able to receive the vaccination. The parents may not be financially able to pay for vaccinations. The parents may have religious or other moral reasons for refusing to vaccinate.

5. What should be the public health response to increase vaccination rates? That is, as a public health policymaker, how would you attempt to increase vaccination rates?

As stated in the video, it is rather difficult to dispel harmful and ungrounded ideas that spread from the Internet and by word-of-mouth, especially when people are more willing to believe what they heard from their neighbor than from an established medical institution. I think public health policies should emphasize more of the social duty aspect of vaccinations. For example, they should hold up the baby who contracted whooping cough, Vanessa, as a real and completely plausible consequence of not immunizing one's child. Research journals and other evidence/ experiment based papers should be summarized and easily accessible with visible links to the original papers for parents who want to see proof that there has been no link established with vaccinations and autism.