Rogerian Argument
The state of health in the United States has vastly improved over the past 100 years. The United States is a much healthier place to grow up, and vaccine-preventable diseases are no longer widely seen in children. However, disease outbreaks in communities across the United States have erupted more frequently in the last few years, and the United States is no longer as immune to these diseases as originally thought. In particular, Colorado has experienced outbreaks of whooping cough in the last couple years. Colorado has experienced 1,183 cases of whooping cough this year, compared with 1,505 cases in 2012, and 419 cases in 2011 (Briggs).
Despite these increased levels of whooping cough in Colorado, many parents seek personal belief exemptions for the vaccination requirements for their children. According to an editorial in The Denver Post in early December 2013, Colorado has an exemption rate of 4.3 percent, which is relatively high compared to the national exemption rates (“Vaccination”). More importantly, the majority of the exemptions sought by parents are due to “personal reasons,” rather than medical or religious reasons (“Vaccination). Parents seeking these personal belief exemptions typically cite risks of autism and benefits of gaining “natural immunity” as motivations in making such decision (Booth). Also, parents seeking the personal belief exemptions may believe that the diseases that the vaccines protect against are not significantly threatening to warrant the vaccinations (“The Vaccine War”). In such cases, the parents typically believe that the risks of the vaccines outweigh the promoted benefits of the vaccines.
Parents seeking these personal belief exemptions may not view the vaccine-preventable diseases as significant threats because these diseases are not usually seen today in the United States. Many parents today have never experienced polio epidemics or a measles outbreak. These vaccine-preventable diseases may be perceived as belonging to a by-gone era of the United States’ history, or even belonging to a less-developed country. These diseases are simply not perceived by these parents as serious threats to the health of their children in the modern United States. When these parents hear of a connection between autism and the measles vaccine, these parents choose to let their children run the risk of acquiring measles over autism because measles does not appear to be a significant threat. Currently, the decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate is still up to the parents in Colorado, and many parents are choosing to run the risk of acquiring a seemingly non-threatening disease rather than subjecting their children to the effects of autism from vaccines.
On the other hand, other parents and concerned individuals may view vaccines as absolutely necessary to continue protect children from these vaccine-preventable diseases. This is the opinion that I hold, and many scientists, public health officials, and researchers agree. These individuals think that we are protected from these diseases in the United States today due to an established herd immunity (“Community Immunity”). This herd immunity has been made possible by the wide administration of vaccines, and this is the reason that such vaccine-preventable disease are not widely seen today in the United States. This herd immunity is diminished when the number of people who are sufficiently vaccinated decreases. As a result, many individuals, including myself, believe that children must be properly vaccinated in order to avoid outbreaks of diseases. Also, these parents and other individuals trust the science and epidemiological support for vaccines, and do not believe in the autism-vaccine link that was falsely promoted by Dr. Wakefield in the late 1990’s (Willingham). Because these individuals do not view autism as a threat, and believe that vaccines are a very important protective measure against serious diseases, they believe that parents should not be so willing to seek personal belief exemptions.
Both viewpoints can benefit from adopting characteristics from the opposing view. For example, the anti-vaccine parents seeking personal exemptions can gain a better understanding of the true facts surrounding vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases by becoming more willing to listen and trust the surveys and studies produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other government agencies that work to improve public health. In turn, the pro-vaccine individuals could also objectively examine all the information provided about vaccine efficacy, and make certain that the ingredients and methods of making vaccines are sufficiently proven by scientific surveys. The anti-vaccine group would benefit from trusting the science behind vaccines a little more, and the pro-vaccine group could benefit from not simply trusting everything that pharmaceutical companies and government agencies promoted. A healthy dose of scientific support and literacy combined with thorough research would benefit both groups. As the proven science and data supports the pro-vaccine viewpoint, concessions can be made by both groups so that children must be vaccinated, unless the parents hold religious beliefs that prohibit vaccines for children, or the children have critical medical conditions that prevent the administration of the vaccines. Both parties can agree that children must be protected against serious health threats. As outbreaks occur more frequently, it will be important to protect children using the best, proven method of protection, which is vaccination.
Both opinions have the goal of protecting children from threats to their health. In order for more children to be vaccinated, correct information about vaccines must be provided for parents that may be swayed not to vaccinate by misinformation about vaccines. In turn, we must make sure that the vaccines are indeed safe for children, so the science surrounding vaccines must be thoroughly examined so that parents will feel more comfortable with vaccinations.
Works Cited
Booth, Michael. “Colorado Parents Rank Second in Nation for Vaccine Refusals.” The Denver Post. 29 Nov 2011. Web. 15 Oct 2013.
Briggs, Austin. “Pertussis Cases Still on Rise.” The Denver Post. 9 Dec 2013. Web. 14 Dec 2013.
“Community Immunity.” Vaccines.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 15 Oct 2013.
“Vaccination Policy Needs Booster Shot.” Editorial. The Denver Post. 10 Dec 2013. Web. 14 Dec 2013.
“The Vaccine War.” Frontline. Writ. Jon Palfreman. Dir. Jon Palfreman. PBS, 2010. DVD.
Willingham, Emily. “Court Rulings Don’t Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link.” Forbes. 9 Aug 2013. Web. 14 Oct 2013.
Despite these increased levels of whooping cough in Colorado, many parents seek personal belief exemptions for the vaccination requirements for their children. According to an editorial in The Denver Post in early December 2013, Colorado has an exemption rate of 4.3 percent, which is relatively high compared to the national exemption rates (“Vaccination”). More importantly, the majority of the exemptions sought by parents are due to “personal reasons,” rather than medical or religious reasons (“Vaccination). Parents seeking these personal belief exemptions typically cite risks of autism and benefits of gaining “natural immunity” as motivations in making such decision (Booth). Also, parents seeking the personal belief exemptions may believe that the diseases that the vaccines protect against are not significantly threatening to warrant the vaccinations (“The Vaccine War”). In such cases, the parents typically believe that the risks of the vaccines outweigh the promoted benefits of the vaccines.
Parents seeking these personal belief exemptions may not view the vaccine-preventable diseases as significant threats because these diseases are not usually seen today in the United States. Many parents today have never experienced polio epidemics or a measles outbreak. These vaccine-preventable diseases may be perceived as belonging to a by-gone era of the United States’ history, or even belonging to a less-developed country. These diseases are simply not perceived by these parents as serious threats to the health of their children in the modern United States. When these parents hear of a connection between autism and the measles vaccine, these parents choose to let their children run the risk of acquiring measles over autism because measles does not appear to be a significant threat. Currently, the decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate is still up to the parents in Colorado, and many parents are choosing to run the risk of acquiring a seemingly non-threatening disease rather than subjecting their children to the effects of autism from vaccines.
On the other hand, other parents and concerned individuals may view vaccines as absolutely necessary to continue protect children from these vaccine-preventable diseases. This is the opinion that I hold, and many scientists, public health officials, and researchers agree. These individuals think that we are protected from these diseases in the United States today due to an established herd immunity (“Community Immunity”). This herd immunity has been made possible by the wide administration of vaccines, and this is the reason that such vaccine-preventable disease are not widely seen today in the United States. This herd immunity is diminished when the number of people who are sufficiently vaccinated decreases. As a result, many individuals, including myself, believe that children must be properly vaccinated in order to avoid outbreaks of diseases. Also, these parents and other individuals trust the science and epidemiological support for vaccines, and do not believe in the autism-vaccine link that was falsely promoted by Dr. Wakefield in the late 1990’s (Willingham). Because these individuals do not view autism as a threat, and believe that vaccines are a very important protective measure against serious diseases, they believe that parents should not be so willing to seek personal belief exemptions.
Both viewpoints can benefit from adopting characteristics from the opposing view. For example, the anti-vaccine parents seeking personal exemptions can gain a better understanding of the true facts surrounding vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases by becoming more willing to listen and trust the surveys and studies produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other government agencies that work to improve public health. In turn, the pro-vaccine individuals could also objectively examine all the information provided about vaccine efficacy, and make certain that the ingredients and methods of making vaccines are sufficiently proven by scientific surveys. The anti-vaccine group would benefit from trusting the science behind vaccines a little more, and the pro-vaccine group could benefit from not simply trusting everything that pharmaceutical companies and government agencies promoted. A healthy dose of scientific support and literacy combined with thorough research would benefit both groups. As the proven science and data supports the pro-vaccine viewpoint, concessions can be made by both groups so that children must be vaccinated, unless the parents hold religious beliefs that prohibit vaccines for children, or the children have critical medical conditions that prevent the administration of the vaccines. Both parties can agree that children must be protected against serious health threats. As outbreaks occur more frequently, it will be important to protect children using the best, proven method of protection, which is vaccination.
Both opinions have the goal of protecting children from threats to their health. In order for more children to be vaccinated, correct information about vaccines must be provided for parents that may be swayed not to vaccinate by misinformation about vaccines. In turn, we must make sure that the vaccines are indeed safe for children, so the science surrounding vaccines must be thoroughly examined so that parents will feel more comfortable with vaccinations.
Works Cited
Booth, Michael. “Colorado Parents Rank Second in Nation for Vaccine Refusals.” The Denver Post. 29 Nov 2011. Web. 15 Oct 2013.
Briggs, Austin. “Pertussis Cases Still on Rise.” The Denver Post. 9 Dec 2013. Web. 14 Dec 2013.
“Community Immunity.” Vaccines.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 15 Oct 2013.
“Vaccination Policy Needs Booster Shot.” Editorial. The Denver Post. 10 Dec 2013. Web. 14 Dec 2013.
“The Vaccine War.” Frontline. Writ. Jon Palfreman. Dir. Jon Palfreman. PBS, 2010. DVD.
Willingham, Emily. “Court Rulings Don’t Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link.” Forbes. 9 Aug 2013. Web. 14 Oct 2013.