Blog Post #4-The Effects of Vaccinations in Children

 In the case, the State of Illinois v. Parents Against Vaccinations (PAV), the jury heard that Jennifer White, is the proud mother of a beautiful two-week-old baby boy. In his first two weeks of life, he has made a number of visits to his pediatrician, which is routine for a newborn. Her perfect world would be shattered with a single phone call. A nurse from the doctor’s office called a few days after their last visit and informed her that  there was a child who has the measles in their waiting room at the same time she was there with her son.   The measles can be spread without physical contact, and it was possible her son was infected.  There was a long period of time where children were at risk for contracting diseases such as the measles, polio, and smallpox, just to name a few. These illnesses were leaving children crippled, or even worse, dead. All of this changed with the invention of the vaccine, but in recent years, more and more parents are choosing not to have their children vaccinated for various reasons.  Although the United States government does not require parents to vaccinate their children, the government should require vaccinations because it is safe and effective, could save lives, protects others around the children, and because it could be expensive to treat the illness a child contracts from not being vaccinated. 

 

Parents should be required to vaccinate their children because if their child contracts a vaccine-preventable disease, it could be expensive to treat. A boy in Oregon had a cut on his forehead, and because he was unvaccinated, he contracted Tetanus, which is a disease that causes clenched muscles and spasms.  The boy spent 57 days in the hospital mostly in intensive care.  He was suffering and could not even eat or drink without feeding tubes.   According to the National Public Radio news story, "This illness could have been prevented with five doses of the tetanus vaccine, for $150”,  but “the ordeal cost $811,929”.  When faced with a choice of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars versus just a little over a hundred dollars, the less expensive option would be the most financially smart choice to make.  Because the child was not vaccinated, he had to spend close to two months in the hospital and mainly intensive care, which increased the medical bill.  The parents could have vaccinated their child, and it would not have ended up costing them and the hospital so much money.  Requiring parents to vaccinate their children for preventable diseases like Tetanus would prevent a similar costly and potentially deadly situation like this one in the future.   According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “the cost of treating unvaccinated children for preventable diseases is costing the federal government millions of dollars each year”.  When citizens are receiving federal aid due to financial needs, they should be required to follow rules for the use of these funds.  Since people who are receiving federal aid are opting not to have their children immunized, their decision is costing the federal government even more money.  Therefore, the government should require all parents and especially those who receive aid to have their children immunized in order to reduce costs.  By requiring parents to vaccinate their children, the cost to taxpayers, parents, and medical systems will be less expensive.

Requiring parents to vaccinate their children will save lives. Though getting the flu might seem like a non-life threatening common occurrence, the flu still kills thousands every year in the United States alone. In an October 2020, Atlanta Journal Constitution article, over 20,000 people died from the flu from 2019 to 2020 and this trend is consistent in past years with some statistics showing three times as many deaths as last year. Putting the flu to the side, there are other deadly diseases, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), that have been eradicated due to vaccinations. Polio, tetanus, hepatitis are just some of the diseases that can kill and be spread to others leading to their deaths. Most recently, there has been a push to vaccinate college students against Meningitis. Katie Strickland, in her viewpoint essay, "Meningitis Vaccination Should Be Mandatory for College Dorm Residents",  states, "Although not as contagious as the flu, bacterial meningitis can still be spread through coughing, kissing or sharing drinking cups or cigarettes."  She goes on to explain that college students are particularly at risk because of how closely they live to one another in dorms, and according to the Meningitis.org website, 90% of children and teens who die from the disease die quickly within the first 24 hours of diagnosis.  No one wants to die.  Vaccinations effectively prevent millions of deadly diseases every year based on World Health Organization findings.  Therefore, by requiring parents to vaccinate their children regardless of parents' opposition to it, the lives of their children will be saved and those who they might have infected without a vaccine will be saved.  While parents may argue that they have the right to decide whether or not their child should receive a vaccine, people who they infect do not have a choice.  Their need to maintain their freedom not only might kill their child but it might unknowingly kill another human being.  Surely, one's freedom to live supersedes another's freedom of choice.  

Similarly, there are parents who object to mandatory vaccinations on religious grounds.  Their main claim is related to the way in which the vaccinations are derived.  There are some vaccines cells derived from human fetuses electively aborted decades ago, according to Sciencemag.org. Since many are opposed to abortion, the fact that vaccines are developed from aborted fetus tissue cells, presents an ethical problem. Matthew Staver, in his viewpoint essay, "Mandatory Vaccinations Threaten Religious Freedom", uses the example from the Catholic Church where the Vatican sent a letter to a parent stating "it would be a sin for the parent to allow her child to be injected with aborted fetal tissue". Though the use of aborted fetus cells does appear like a person who gets vaccinated is supporting abortion, that just simply is not the case. There are still a number of vaccines that are not obtained in this manner, and at this point, for those vaccines that need an embryo's cells, technology is not yet at the point where these cells can be extracted other then in an aborted fetus. One way those with religious exceptions could view getting vaccines could be, with the understanding that though a life was taken and this is why the vaccine is available, millions more lives will be saved with the vaccine. As the medical field improves, however, there should be a focus on obtaining these cells from non-aborted fetuses or through synthetic or plant-based options.

It is important that parents vaccinate their children whenever possible in order to protect their own families, potentially save their lives, protect others in society, and save money.  Though it is understandable that parents want the freedom to choose whether or not their child is vaccinated, children who contract deadly diseases because they are either not vaccinated or another child is not vaccinated have no choice.  Parents and other voters can contact their lawmakers to address this issue with a bill requiring that any time a child visits a doctor or medical facility, the doctor will automatically update the child’s vaccinations.  Furthermore, vaccination manufacturers can calm concerns by testing the effects more thoroughly and providing literature about their safety to parents and hospitals.