Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels
To what extent should the government interfere in the religious, medical, and social aspects of its constituents’ lives? This is the question that lies at the heart of many of modern America’s political debates, but in recent times, one in particular has become particularly relevant: immunization mandates. Vaccines should be compulsory for all, with the only exceptions being medical concerns. The option to avoid getting a vaccine for any other purpose should no longer be recognized, due to the misinformation causing many to opt out and the widespread effects it has on the health of an entire population.
When healthy individuals refuse immunization, they put those who can’t receive vaccines at risk of infection. This is due to herd immunity, which holds that once a large enough percentage of a population develops resistance, others gain protection from it as well; there are very few carriers left for the contagion to transmit to and from.
From the very beginning of its practices, the concept of vaccination as protection of the population has clashed with ethical considerations. Edward Jenner, the English physician who is credited with using “innoculation” as a prophylactic measure against smallpox in the late 1700s, did so by injecting an 8-year-old boy with the cowpox pus of a milkmaid.
Despite those questionable origins, he succeeded. And if not for the breakthroughs in vaccine discovery, policy, and administration that followed his work, common viruses like smallpox, measles, and most recently, COVID-19, would not have seen prevalence curbed so sharply. Immunization is one of the most important factors in eradicating virulent infections. However, recent political standpoints have extrapolated this vital technology into weaponized propaganda.
In today’s United States, vaccination has become yet another necessity that is unnecessarily politicized at the expense of the people it serves. Politicians like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Trump administration’s Secretary of Health, have actively discouraged vaccines, stating they cause autism in children (a claim that has long since been disproved). He’s taken drastic steps spreading misinformation and fear about treatments that have been validated as safe and effective time and time again, including forcing the CDC to reverse their position on the autism controversy, dismantling vaccine recommendations for MMR, hepatitis B, and COVID-19.
Yet many still endorse his policies, and in the process, harm themselves and innocent relatives — especially children who lack autonomy and blindly trust in parents who don’t know any better but insist their representatives do. In fact, there are countless anti-vax survivors of COVID-19 who reversed their position on vaccines and later urged others to immunize themselves; social media is filled with heartbreaking accounts of victims who requested the vaccine on their deathbeds – only to find out it was too late. Many of them were influenced by online lobbyists and politicians. Why should endorsing vaccination be anything more than advocating for human rights? Why should groundbreaking medical advancement be considered a political statement? Americans must realize that saving lives is non-partisan.
Critics claim mandatory vaccination is the same as abortion ban, in that it infringes on bodily autonomy. However, these are two vastly different discussions that should be treated as such. A pregnant woman receiving an abortion does so in order to regain control of her own life, and the life of her unborn child. Her abortion does not, in any way, affect the lives and health of her community. Contrastingly, refusal of vaccination for a non-medical reason puts the rest of the population at risk, especially young children, elderly citizens, or those with immune conditions. A more fitting analogy would be gun control – a single individual claiming to exercise their rights can be responsible for the death of many others.
The most common argument against immunization mandates stems from religious exemptions, which are sought by individuals usually due to certain beliefs of purity, prayer as a sole method of healing, and abstinence from animal products of any sort (which are sometimes used in vaccines). This also raises the question of whether governments should have the power to interfere with faith, due to the First Amendment’s guaranteed freedom of religion. And the answer is it is vital for any democracy to protect this right – until it infringes on public health. Human life should take precedence over all other factors, and should be the primary concern when forming federal policy of any sort. The ultimate goal of a government is to protect its citizens. Mandates wouldn’t discriminate against specific faiths – especially since many religious institutions such as the Catholic Church have re-affirmed the importance of vaccines.
It’s not just faith-based considerations, either; opponents also cite unreliable vaccine development and administration hesitancies. Even those who do not identify as anti-vaxxers doubt the safety of a vaccine created under the stress and time constraints of a pandemic, as well as the credibility of federal funded programs like the CDC that experience violent fluctuations in funding and support. However, this rapid development is due to a surge in investment and sudden necessity. The technologies themselves, such as mRNAs used in the COVID vaccine, have often been researched for years. Additionally, a federal mandate on immunization would naturally call for even more rigorous clinical trials and safety testing.
Finally, when all is said and all is done, it’s crucial to preserve one exception for a vaccine mandate – medical concerns. About one in every million people experience anaphylactic reactions to the gelatin, latex, egg proteins, or preservatives found in vaccines or their injections needles. Though these allergies can be treated, they are life-threatening, more so than the viruses themselves. Vaccines don’t represent your freedom. Refusing one should not be a political statement, nor does it benefit anyone’s health. From companies passing mandates for their employees during the COVID-19 pandemic to Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts, 1905, which upheld the state’s epidemic-era smallpox immunization ordinance, it’s been demonstrated through countless historical instances that vaccine mandates have provided a strong foundation for healthcare policy in the US, especially in times of distress. They are necessary not only to protect our constituents, but to separate political agendas from a nation’s future, and renew the extremely high regard to which we hold human life.
Be First to Comment