The controversy of whether parents should have the right to abstain from vaccinating their children, has become a prominent debate in the media. As it stands, parents legally have the choice to not vaccinate their children. The controversial arguments surrounding this topic have been heightened particularly by the recent reappearance of illnesses which have not been diagnosed for years, as a result of the slight decline of vaccination rates. The ethical issue in this case, is that an unvaccinated child could potentially contract an illness which in turn could spread to other children, thus creating a continuous cycle of illness which could have easily been avoided with a vaccination. Those who oppose making child vaccinations compulsory, argue that it is a human right to have authority over the way in which they choose to raise their child, and that vaccinations present a potential risk of autism. The moral beliefs of various religious and cultural groups present differing views on the controversy, for example the Catholic Church recognizes the value of vaccine while Christian Scientists do not support medical intervention.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism can be applied to the view that vaccinations should be mandatory. Utilitarianism centers on the belief that an action should be performed to result in the benefit of the majority. Many pro-vaccinators adopt the ideals of utilitarianism in their arguments. They believe that vaccinations are designed to prevent illness for the majority and in turn, preserve the health and well-being of the society in general. Those in favour of mandatory vaccinations adopt the viewpoint that the wishes of a small minority (anti vaccinators), are far outweighed by the benefit which would be delivered to the vast majority. This utilitarian standpoint is shared by several religious groups including Catholicism, Buddhism and the Jewish religion and Islamic religion. While each of these religions’ standpoints on vaccination is slightly ambiguous due to the recent dating of vaccination use, the morals of each religion seem to support vaccinations. Catholics, Buddhists, Jews and Islamics generally support the use of vaccinations for the same principle: that vaccinations posses the ability to preserve life. In saying this, neither of these religions explicitly believes that vaccinations should be compulsory.
In contrast, those who oppose making vaccinations compulsory for children argue that it is the right of the parent to choose how they wish to raise and protect their child. The ethical ideology of ethical subjectivism supports this point of view. Ethical subjectivism is the view that moral truths exist, but they are determined by the individual. Thus, if an individual possesses a certain view point, this opinion is considered morally subjective and cannot be considered ‘incorrect.’ Relativism could also apply to the viewpoint that vaccinations should not e compulsory for children. Relativism is define by the belief that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. Christian Scientists for example, do not condone medical intervention. Given vaccinations are considered a medical intervention, they do not support making vaccines for children mandatory. However, the religious groups which do not support vaccines are in the vast minority.
The ethical issue of whether parents should be allowed to withhold from vaccinating their child, has become a controversial topic in the media due to the varying ethical, religious and cultural perspectives which present differing views on this ethical dilemma. Medical professionals argue that outbreaks of illness and the increasing number of religious vaccine exemptions make unvaccinated children have a higher risk of acquiring vaccine preventable infections. In take this standpoint, they are ultimately adopting the view point of a utilitarianist. In contrast, those religious and cultural groups that argue against medical intervention, are contending from a standpoint of moral subjectivism. This also applies to those parents who believe it is a human right to decide the healthcare of their child. Thus the ethical dilemma of vaccinations has become an issue of whether Australia should give way to certain religious and cultural groups and reluctant parents, or to the vast majority, even if the latter causes dissatisfaction for others. It could be argued, that ignoring peoples’ religious beliefs is unethical in itself.
Thus, the ethical issue of wether vaccinations for children should be made mandatory revolves around the will of the parent, religious and cultural groups, as well as the Australian medical industry. To make vaccinations compulsory for children would remove the right of the parent to decide the healthcare treatment of their child and would ignore the beliefs of certain religious groups. To allow the parent to decide whether their child should be vaccinated is potentially putting other children at risk of illness. There are contentious arguments for both view points, which makes the controversy of vaccinations an ethical issue.
Did you like this example?
Yes
No
Cite this paper
Parental Right to Decide to Not Vaccinate Their Children.
(2022, September 15). Edubirdie. Retrieved November 2, 2024, from https://edubirdie.com/examples/parental-right-to-decide-to-not-vaccinate-their-children/
“Parental Right to Decide to Not Vaccinate Their Children.” Edubirdie, 15 Sept. 2022, edubirdie.com/examples/parental-right-to-decide-to-not-vaccinate-their-children/
Parental Right to Decide to Not Vaccinate Their Children. [online].
Available at: <https://edubirdie.com/examples/parental-right-to-decide-to-not-vaccinate-their-children/> [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].
Parental Right to Decide to Not Vaccinate Their Children [Internet]. Edubirdie.
2022 Sept 15 [cited 2024 Nov 2].
Available from: https://edubirdie.com/examples/parental-right-to-decide-to-not-vaccinate-their-children/
copy
Stuck on your essay?
