It is a commonplace observation that vaccines are held responsible for the majority of global health advancement, such as the extermination of smallpox and other considerable reductions in very severe infections such as measles and polio. Amidst this, vaccinations have always been a subject of discussion when it comes to consideration of ethical controversies. The major ethical debates associated with vaccine development, regulation, and usage revolve around access disparities, informed consent, research and testing, and mandates. Multifaceted issues linked with ethical principles and the nature of evidence touch on the resolution of whether to administer mumps-measles-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Part of the goal of this paper is to test and affirm whether the vaccine for MMR is safe, or not; and to provide justifications for the same. The paper shall also explore some of the involved processes entailed in practitioners’ decisions during vaccination.
The Safety behind the MMR Vaccine
The first ethical issue general practitioners are bombarded with touch on the potential of immunizing small infants against an assortment of common diseases. Often, giving the MMR vaccine to them leaves these general practitioners with the question of whether such infants should be exposed to various vaccines at that current age. General practitioners remain uncertain about the safety contained in those vaccines regardless of the fact that the authorities ascertain the same. Worse still, some of the departments of health have published articles and studies that support the above claim, but fail to mention the linkage flanked by MMR vaccine and other prospective confrontational rejoinders. Some experts such as CDC (2001) have focused on conceivable problems tied to the exploration approaches of people touching on severe effects of the MRR vaccine. However, they fail to remark on prospective problems under any research that affirm the safety of these vaccines. The sad thing is that there is absolutely nothing that can be said about these investigators who enjoy receiving financial backup from drug producers engaged in the manufacture of MMR vaccines.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In some nations like the UK, general practitioners are paid some fee for every child they immunize and further received payments for meeting the set targets. In instances where there is a tendency to miss these targets, the arising phenomenon is tied to the serious repercussions for the monetary steadiness of the vaccine practice. Additionally, there is substantial burden on participants of the vaccinating team to safeguard that the infants are well-immunized with every endorsed and approved MMR vaccine. In one of the recently-conducted survey that undertook to stimulate the practices, knowledge, and attitudes related to this vaccine, the center of research lay on administering the second dose. Less than 50% of the professionals did agree with the policy of administering this particular vaccine second dose ( CDC, 2001) . The truth is that these professional concerns are not bound to affect the figure of children receiving the vaccine. From this illustration alone, it is evident that nowadays it is not easy to question the health authority, and what that particular health authority has proposed, approved, and tested. Of key to mention is that this is done to the detriment of many innocent groups of patients such as infants who do not even have a voice to speak for themselves.
Pro-Vax Standing
The proponents of Pro-vax postulate that vaccinations are required in protection of society against any income dangers of infectious diseases, including MMR. These proponents argue that any harmful vaccinations against infants is outweighed by the ancient horrors that are associated with these kind of diseases and complications. They also affirm that making vaccines as an optional thing tends to expose those who cannot have vaccinations to complications by just relying on the selfish needs of the few individuals. The pro-vax proponents consequently argue for the desires of the many, rather than protecting the few ones.
Anti-Vax Standing
The anti-vax proponents have always consented that the vaccinations are meant to protect the health of the children. To them, the modern blind acceptance of vaccinations tend to ignore the potential dangers associated with common and invasive medical procedure. They further postulate that no child should be coerced to have medical procedures without considering acquiring full consent. They consequently argue for the rights of the individuals who are supposed to make their own choices.
Testing the Validity of the Evidence
Many have had to question the actual confirmation related to the hazards of the MMR vaccine. The sought-after proof for a linkage between MMR injection and the advancement of the condition of autism is enshrined on the assumption extracted from a closer reflection that the parents of 8/12 infants inspected for autism and gastro-intestinal symptoms connected the commencement of these conditions with the MMR vaccination. Sadly, there is lack of evidence to this day to offer a backing of this evidence. It is unfortunate to mention that patients needing MMR vaccination are every so often not specific at ascertaining the root cause of what they are ailing from, and that individual anecdote is believed to do more than the mere suggestion of a theory that requires proper scientific analysis and testing. The major concern in every community is centered on the effort in comprehending and conveying such evidence in a straight forward manner ( Vanhelst, Bert, Coopman & Deplanque,, 2001)
How to Deal with Uncertainty
In the earlier course of this paper, it was mentioned that there is a “conflict” whereby the authority affirms that it is safer to give MMR vaccination, something that is contrary to the general practitioners’ doubts which are augmented in converse proportion to professionals’ conviction. This controversy is likely to cause such general practitioners and the sensitized public not to acquire any necessary, helpful, and sufficient assistance after knowing the reality and restrictions of knowledge. In the long term interests, it is noticed that the beneficial health practices will not be enjoyed by all . That kind of complex understanding is regularly perceived, from a coherent viewpoint, as irrationality and superstition which ought to be destroyed and dispelled. It is indispensable for the public to understand that general practitioners get paid monetary incentives to go and provide MMR vaccinations. This move alone triggers the question of whether general practitioners do act in the paramount welfares of the public and the patients, or only dance to the authorities’ financial tune ( Gutmann, 2013 ) .
Conclusion
It can be appreciated from this discussion paper that global health disparities are becoming more extreme and accentuate ethical dilemmas. Since vaccines are best for addressing certain conditions and diseases, the development of vaccines tends to lag behind community requisite health needs. As a recommendation, it is prudent for medical and public health officials to make proper decisions regarding the kind of health needs that must be addressed , and how to integrate vaccination into their medical services. It can be concluded that the pro-vax standing outweighs the anti-vax standing, since the pro-vax argue for the common interests of all.
References
CDC (2001). Vaccination against mumps, measles, and rubella: is there a case for deepening the debate? BMJ : British Medical Journal , 323 (7317), 838–840.
Garza, A. (January 01, 2013). A security take on safeguarding children: pediatric medical countermeasure research. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism : Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 11, 2, 138-41.
Gutmann, A. (January 01, 2013). Safeguarding children--pediatric research on medical countermeasures. The New England Journal of Medicine, 368, 13, 1171-3.
Vanhelst, J., Hardy, L., Bert, D., Duhem, S., Coopman, S., Libersa, C., Deplanque, D., ... Béghin, L. (January 01, 2013). Effect of child health status on parents' allowing children to participate in pediatric research. Bmc Medical Ethics, 14.
