Over the years, vaccination has proven to one of the major success stories when it comes to public health. It is through vaccines that nations have managed to eradicate deadly diseases such as wild polio, smallpox among others. Vaccines provide the body with the best defense against various infectious diseases. Vaccination works by exposing the body to a very small, safe amount of an infection. As such, this exposes the immune system to the infection, enabling it to recognize it when it attacks and thus prevents the disease that it might cause. In simpler terms, after vaccination, if you get exposed to the disease, the infection will be less severe, or you will not become infected (Capua, & Marangon, 2007).
Despite the benefits of vaccination, there is a fair share of people who are opposed to it. Some people are opposed to vaccination due to philosophical, religious or personal objections. It is also understandable that some people are concerned about how safe or efficient these vaccines are. Opponents of vaccination claim that the immune system of children has been designed in such a way that it can naturally deal with these infections. The introduction of foreign vaccine ingredients into the body of children could have negative side effects such as paralysis, seizures, and even death. The opponents argue that it is not right for the government to intervene in such medical choices and the decision on whether to be vaccinated or not should be personal (Schwartz, 2009).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Following the controversies surrounding vaccines, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has undertaken the role of testing the vaccine before approval. However, this helps ensure that the vaccines are safe and effective. The strong argument posed by the vaccination proponents is that the ingredients used in vaccines have been tested for safety and efficacy, and this argument has been backed up by top medical organizations such as CDC and FDA (Dungu, Gerdes, & Smit, 2009).
References
Blume, S. (2006). Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations. Social science & medicine , 62 (3), 628-642.
Capua, I., & Marangon, S. (2003). The use of vaccination as an option for the control of avian influenza. Avian Pathology , 32 (4), 335-343.
Capua, I., & Marangon, S. (2007). The use of vaccination to combat multiple introductions of Notifiable Avian Influenza viruses of the H5 and H7 subtypes between 2000 and 2006 in Italy. Vaccine , 25 (27), 4987-4995.
Dungu, B., Gerdes, T., & Smit, T. (2004). The use of vaccination in the control of bluetongue in southern Africa. Vet Ital , 40 (4), 616-22.
Leask, J., & McIntyre, P. (2003). Public opponents of vaccination: a case study. Vaccine , 21 (32), 4700-4703.
Marangon, S., & Busani, L. (2007). The use of vaccination in poultry production. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties , 26 (1), 265.
Meyer, C., & Reiter, S. (2004). [Vaccine opponents and sceptics. History, background, arguments, interaction]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz , 47 (12), 1182-1188.
Salmon, D. A., Teret, S. P., MacIntyre, C. R., Salisbury, D., Burgess, M. A., & Halsey, N. A. (2006). Compulsory vaccination and conscientious or philosophical exemptions: past, present, and future. The Lancet , 367 (9508), 436-442.
Schwartz, J. L. (2009). Unintended consequences: the primacy of public trust in vaccination. Michigan Law Review First Impressions , 107 (1), 100-104.
Schwartz, J. L. (2009). Unintended consequences: the primacy of public trust in vaccination. Michigan Law Review First Impressions , 107 (1), 100-104.
