Evaluation of Arguments by Two Authors on the Value of Vaccination

Immunization which is also called vaccination is a medical approach to contagious diseases whereby a weakened form of disease-causing bacteria is deliberately introduced into the body to trigger the production of more antibodies that boost immunity. In essence, vaccination aims at improving the body's resistance to various contagious infections such as polio, chicken pox, and polio among others. From a medical perspective, vaccination presents a precautionary or proactive intervention to some of the most infectious diseases which may cause not only deaths but also debilitation and drastic decline in the body's immunity. The introduction of vaccines into the body of a healthy person not only serves the purpose of boosting his or her immunity but also minimizes the chances of the infection becoming an epidemic. While both the articles by Bailey, Ronald and Singer, Jeffrey contribute substantial ideas to the discourse of vaccines, the former offers a stronger argument in support of mandatory immunization.

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

Save 25%

Bailey, Ronald in his article titled "People Should Not Be Allowed to Refuse Vaccination" appreciates the fact that the medical intention of using vaccines is to proactively address the possibility of a contagious infection before they present. The author juxtaposes the fact that most of the infectious diseases against which vaccines are administered such as polio have a history of causing deaths while polio causes permanent disability on the victims. Therefore, an intervention in the form of vaccines that reduces the chances of such fatalities and health complications in case such infections arise is worthwhile. Conversely, Jeffrey in his writing well contends that people should be free from suffering hence immunization is essential. However, he argues that it should not be imposed on the people unless one already contracted it. He posits that evidence of contracting a disease must be the sole reason that informs forced treatment or even quarantine. In this regard, Bailey underscores the significance of applying the precautionary principle in addressing contagious infections due to their associated deaths and health degeneration. However, Jeffrey tends to assert that treatment should override prevention which is openly a fallacy in medical practice.

Ronald correctly alludes to the fact that administration of vaccines is not merely intended to protect the individual who gets it but also the broader population who may be at risk of contracting the infection. For instance, he states that vaccination for whooping cough cannot be given to infants yet they are at risk of infection and death. Therefore, they rely on the immunization of the older ones to reduce their chances of contracting the contagious disease. Therefore, he accurately infers the concept of herd immunity by posing its best application in cases where a section of the population has no option but to rely on the immunization of the immunity of the older ones for them to be safe. While Jeffrey also uses herd immunity to argue against forced immunization, he does not pose any hard facts to support the allusion that not getting vaccinated is the only option that the anti-vaxxers have in dealing with potential hypersensitive reactions that may arise after using the vaccines. Comparatively, Ronald inspires logic since he premises his argument on the fact that in medicine, whenever one has to choose between with a death risk and a speculative suffering, the best is to first prevent the possible death.

Ronald provides a medical look at the issue of vaccination while Jeffrey inadvertently takes a philosophical and liberal stance which then undermines the intricacies involved in ensuring population health. Firs, Ronald provides statistical evidence on how vaccination has led to a reduction in deaths related to contagious infections as well as data resulting from resistance to vaccines. For example, he presents that since 1924 until now prevented 103 million incidences of polio, before diphtheria vaccine, there were approximately 2100 cases recorded which resulted in 1800 death annually but after its introduction, no cases of deaths were realized in 2006. In giving these concrete figures, he demonstrates the factual background and contributions of immunization in reducing recorded infections and associated fatalities. According to him, the primary role of medicine is to ensure minimal suffering and deaths. Conversely, Jeffrey makes philosophical assumption that there is a section of the population that is naturally resistant to infections hence forced vaccination to undermine their liberty of choice. Nonetheless, he does not give any actual data to enumerate how many such cases of natural resistance have been recorded. Simply arguing that vaccines do not necessarily result in deaths is presumptive if it is not accompanied by factual evidence.

Ronald illuminates on the cause-effect relationships between contagious infections and health complications among the newborns as a way of providing clarity on the consequences of rejecting immunization. He notes that babies born of mothers infected with rubella experience defects such as deafness, damaged hearts, and stunted intellect and vision challenges. By giving this relationship, the author correctly provides meaning to the need for proactivity in preventing the infectious diseases through vaccination. On the other hand, Jeffrey simply consolidates hypotheses and poses questions which lack any traces of evidence. For instance, he questions the certainty that vaccines may have adverse effects on the unborn or not. His arguments offend the precaution in medical practice which requires that action which may potentially prevent suffering is taken even if there is no certainty about the occurrence of an infection.