This piece and the one that follows, “The Paradox of Government Vaccine Mandates” by Tim Rubbelke,
present a point and counterpoint in the current resurgence of debate over
vaccines. The first, by Kristen Senetar, outlines the positives of maximum
vaccination while the second examines the problematic nature of enforcing this
notion.
By
Kristen Senetar
If
you’ve turned on the news lately, you’ve probably heard about the outbreak of
measles in the United States. Although the infectious disease has been
considered eliminated from the United States since the year 20001, more
than 120 people have contracted it since the beginning of this year.2
How could an outbreak like this happen when there is a vaccine to protect us
from measles? Should everyone be required to be vaccinated?
Vaccines
are used to protect us against numerous diseases: measles, mumps, polio and
countless others. The two-dose measles vaccine, which is spread out over
several years, is 97% effective.3 The protection offered by this and
other vaccines has helped our world become a much healthier place. While not 100%
effective, vaccines have saved countless lives by offering a great defense
against diseases that can often turn deadly. They are a quick and easy way to
protect yourself and your family from illnesses. So why wouldn’t every parent
vaccinate their child?
Some
people do have concerns about vaccines. Over the past decade, there has been a
growing fear that vaccines are linked to autism. However, the 1998 article, which
stated that certain vaccines increase the risk of autism has been proven false,
retracted from the Lancet, and the
author of the paper later lost his medical license.4 There are also some
individuals who cannot be vaccinated due to medical conditions such as certain
allergies or suppressed immune systems. However, this number of individuals who
cannot receive vaccines due to medical reasons is significantly smaller than
those who can.
Should
everyone be required to get vaccinated against measles and other communicable
diseases?
The
short answer is yes, everyone should be required to get vaccinated for
everything possible, as suggested by their doctor. Except for those who have a
specific medical condition and those with religious objections, most Americans can
receive all vaccines. It is essential that the majority of the population gets
vaccinated because it will support herd immunity. This notion is essential to
public health, stating that if the number of people who are vaccinated is significantly
greater than the number of those who are not, the vaccinated population can
essentially protect the unvaccinated population. However, as the unvaccinated
group grows larger and larger, herd immunity becomes less and less effective.
Therefore, it is crucial that those who can be vaccinated do so in an effort to
protect themselves and others.
There
are also some people who have religious objections to vaccines. While religious
freedom is a valued good, parents’ choices to not vaccinate endanger their
children. If they will not vaccinate their children, then perhaps alternative
actions should be put in place during periods of outbreaks, such as not
allowing them to go to school. If an unvaccinated child were exposed to a
disease, like the measles, and went to school before realizing what they had,
they would be placing everyone at their school at risk of exposure. Even though
most vaccinated children would go unharmed, the vaccine is not 100% effective.
Keeping unvaccinated children out of school during times of outbreaks would help
protect both the vaccinated and unvaccinated population.
Medical
conditions aside, is it ethical to require everyone to vaccinate his or her
children? This can be answered using two of the ethical principles: beneficence
and non-maleficence. Take, for example, a newborn baby named Joe. Joe hasn’t
been exposed to the germs of the outside world, like the cold virus or measles.
He begins his life by staying inside most of the time, only going out for short
walks or trips to the doctor’s office. Shortly after turning one, Joe receives
his first MMR vaccine, as suggested by his doctor. As he continues to grow, Joe
receives all the suggested vaccinations and lives a fairly healthy life. One
day, while on an airplane, Joe, who is now a teenager, unknowingly sits next to
someone infected with measles. Since Joe received the measles vaccine, no harm
comes from the situation and he continues to be healthy as he grows into an
adult. This scenario supports the principle of beneficence because the vaccines
helped keep Joe healthy and protected against disease.
Now,
imagine the same child, Joe, had parents who decided, for non-medical or
religious reasons, to not vaccinate him as suggested by his doctor. Joe grew
normally, just like kids who did receive vaccines, and led a fairly healthy
childhood. One day, Joe, who is now a teenager, got on an airplane and
unknowingly sat next to someone who had the measles. Since the measles is a
highly communicable disease and the two were sitting so close together, Joe was
exposed to the disease. Joe, who never knew the person next to him had the
measles, felt fine after leaving the airport but a few days later starts
experiencing symptoms. In a matter of days, Joe grows very sick and ends up in
the hospital. After several long days, Joe begins to feel better and finally
makes a full recovery. While the outcome of a full recovery is the best case,
Joe experienced unnecessary suffering and harm. Therefore, the decision Joe’s
parents made to not vaccinate him violates the ethical principle of
non-maleficence.
Overall,
vaccines were created to protect us from harm. No medical intervention is 100%
effective or 100% safe. Some people do experience reactions to vaccines, but
the majority does not. For most people, vaccines offer a greater benefit than
they do the possibility of harm. Medical conditions aside, it is our duty to
protect others and ourselves from diseases like the measles by following
medical guidance to receive vaccinations. Who knows, the life you save might
just be your own.
Kristen is currently a Regulatory Assistant at the University of
Texas Southwestern. She received a B.S. from Butler University in biology
with minors in mathematics and chemistry and a Master's in Bioethics from Case
Western Reserve University. Her interests in the bioethics field include
genetics, vulnerable populations and the rights of the unborn.
1,3 "Measles Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4 Feb. 2015.
Web. 14 Feb. 2015. <http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html>.
2 "Measles
Cases and Outbreaks." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 14 Feb. 2015. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html>.
4 Caplan, Arthur. "There Is No Other Side to the Vaccine
Debate." Chicagotribune.com. 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 14 Feb. 2015. <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-measles-vaccine-jenny-mccarthy-autism-ebola-perspec-0213-jm-20150212-story.html>.