Essay Example on Military Immunizations: Ethical Implications?

As one enlists to the military, they are expected to take immunizations in the form of vaccines by wavering their right to informed consent. For instance, the Department of Defense (DoD) ensures that it administers several vaccines to the military members per the Joint Instruction on Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis (Hoke & Clifford 1623). However, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the practice of servicemen in the context of ethical implications. Military members should not be forced to waive their right to informed consent with vaccinations to enlist and maintain military service because it is unethical to do so. It unnecessarily violates their liberty and health. It subjects servicemen to possible adverse health reactions via vaccination ingredients, or unknown allergies with those that are allergic, and subjects servicemen to experimental vaccines with more possible adverse health reactions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

It is unethical to force servicemen to waive their right to informed consent with vaccinations because vaccines unnecessarily violate military members' liberty and health. This raises the dilemma of whether vaccines are mandatory ("Mandatory Vaccination"). Personal liberty and health are essentially forms of individual freedom that protect members of the public as well as military men against the excesses of the government and the related administrators. There are various medical ethical issues related to vaccines. Privacy and confidentiality is the most common ethical issue related to the administration of vaccines to military members. Vaccines could also encourage the transmission of diseases either through direct or indirect contact with the infected person. Some other cases of administration could involve malpractice and negligence, which would expose the health of the servicemen to danger. Besides, adjusting the informed consent, which is part of the legality of such operations, would be termed as a violation of ethical conduct. They could only be allowed to take them when they want and not through forceful interventions (Sunn & Amy, "Meet The New York Couple"). Therefore, it remains unethical to force military men to waive their right to informed consent with vaccinations as it violates their liberty and health.

It is unethical to force military members to waive their right to informed consent with vaccinations because vaccines subject servicemen to possible adverse health reactions and allergies via vaccination ingredients. Research by Chung resulted in findings that many vaccine administrations, including some unknown, are related to adverse vaccine reactions (50). The adverse reactions, including allergic reactions, could sometimes be fatal. Even so, some believe that they could be mild, but do not quote the conditions (Burke, "Scholarly Articles on vaccines"). Common vaccine components include egg proteins, yeast proteins, and the latex in stoppers or plungers of the packages. Various ethical issues arise with the vaccination requirements in the form of a balance between personal autonomy and the potential risks to a population (Amin 1). This concept of non-maleficence has been noted by the World Health Organization (Moodley et al., "Ethical Considerations"). Healthcare practitioners would not be aware of the potential threats to the military men while issuing vaccines. Therefore, ethical principles are altered when forcing vaccination to servicemen because of the potential adverse health reactions and allergies posed by the ingredients.

It remains unethical to force the members of the military to waive their right to informed consent with vaccinations because the vaccines themselves could be experimental. Giving experimental vaccines to servicemen would mean exposing them to the testing phases of the medicines. The military members are part of a vulnerable population as adjusting the consent compromises their intentions of taking part in research protocols. The vulnerability of the population causes various ethical and logistical challenges that only harm the population itself (Asundi & Nahid, "Making Emergency"). Some researchers end up trying vaccines in human beings without sufficiently waiting to see their reactions to animals. Even with sufficient information on animals, some vaccines could cause adverse health reactions to human beings (Katz 1844). Additionally, utilizing animal models is not the most critical part of ensuring a clinical trial. Very few studies mention the integration of consent and are prone to ethical dilemmas. Therefore, forcing military men to adjust their consents on vaccines poses ethical implications as the vaccines could be experimental without their knowledge.

Servicemen should not be forced to waive their right to informed consent with vaccinations because of ethical issues related to individual liberty and health, the risk with vaccination ingredients, and potential adverse health reactions. Such forceful adjustments affect the privacy and confidentiality of the military men as they violate ethical conduct. Additionally, military men are prone to reactions, including allergic ones, through ingredients such as egg and yeast proteins. They are also a vulnerable population as they could be exposed to the vaccine or immune experiments without their knowledge. Wavering the consent on vaccines could lead to unintended or unexpected fatalities. Military men are part of a public population with similar rights to the public, and ought to question the ethicality associated with vaccinations while in service. It, therefore, remains unethical to force the wavering of vaccine consents just to get enlisted or maintain service.

Works Cited

"Mandatory Vaccination: Should Vaccination Be Mandatory?" Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 7 Apr. 2015, https://icof-infobaselearning-com.ezproxy.faytechcc.edu/recordurl.aspx?ID=14915. Accessed 15 Apr. 2020.

Amin, Alvin N., et al. "Ethical Issues Concerning Vaccination Requirements." Public Health Reviews, vol. 34, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-20.

Asundi, Archana, and Nahid Nahid Bhadelia. "Making Emergency Use of Experimental Vaccines Safer." AMA Journal of Ethics, vol. 22, no. 1, 2020, pp. E43-49, doi:10.1001/amajethics.2020.43.

Burke, Chelsea W. "Scholarly Articles on Vaccines: History, Journal Articles, & More." Scholarly Resources for Learning and Research | Gale, 2020, www.gale.com/open-access/vaccination.

Chung, Eun H. "Vaccine allergies." Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research, vol. 3, no. 1, 2014, p. 50.

Hoke, Charles H., and Clifford E. Snyder. "History of the restoration of adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine, live oral (Adenovirus Vaccine) in the context of the Department of Defense acquisition system." Vaccine, vol. 31, no. 12, 2013, pp. 1623-1632.

Katz, Randall. "Friendly Fire: The Mandatory Military Anthrax Vaccination Program." Duke Law Scholarship Repository | Duke Law Research, 2001, scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol50/iss6/7.

Moodley, Keymanthri, et al. "Ethical Considerations for Vaccination Programmes in Acute Humanitarian Emergencies." WHO | World Health Organization, 25 Sept. 2012, www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/91/4/12-113480/en/.

Sunn, Leah H., and Amy Brittain. "Meet The New York Couple Donating Millions To The Anti Vax Movement." The Washington Post, 18 June 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/meet-the-new-york-couple-donating-millions-to-the-anti-vax-movement/2019/06/18/9d791bcc-8e28-11e9-b08e-cfd89bd36d4e_story.html. Accessed 18 June 2019.