Running Head: MANDATORY VACCINATION 1

MANDATORY VACCINATION 2

Annotated Bibliography on Mandatory Vaccination

Violeta Morales

Chamberlain University

Annotated Bibliography on Mandatory Vaccination

Jones, L. (2019). Mandatory Vaccination. The American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 13– 13.

According to Jones (2019), taking advantage of the population in fear of an infection or a disease outbreak to try and sway them for a vaccine that is approximately 50% is not appropriate. Vaccination is important to people’s lifestyles and choices but it should not be mandatory because that would be interfering with the people’s rights and freedom. The government needs to roll out the vaccination processes with a good initiative to get numerous people to voluntarily accept the program but not a compulsory process. Jones explained that the fact that there is “interference with people’s rights and freedom it is not right to take part in a program that would deny people the mandatory vaccination” (2019). The inaccuracy of the vaccines and the fact that there is no clear understanding of the negative consequences and reactions of the vaccines makes it a major threat. The concept makes it a major problem because people will not willingly jeopardize their health instead, they do need a healthy standard which will make it easier to change their interactions which is important towards their practice.

Offit, P. A., & Salisbury, D. M. (2021). Childhood vaccination: should it be mandatory? BMJ: British Medical Journal, 344(7858), 18–19.

Offit explained that childhood vaccination should be mandatory because it helps protect people from infections (2021). However, Salisbury thinks that “mandatory issuing of vaccines is not an option instead there are alternative approaches that the government can easily utilize” to help make sure that there is a higher uptake of the vaccinations (2021). It is evident that the government might have the best interests for its people but the research and the effects of the vaccinations are usually not clear and this is what makes numerous people skeptical. The mandatory sense of the vaccine will help get rid of a disease or an outbreak within a short duration and help save millions of lives which is vital for the way that they do advance the health protocols and principles that would shape and change the way that they embrace the concept of vaccinations. The general belief of the most of the public is that the government needs to be forthright with the consequences of the vaccines and all the possible effects. The clear understanding of such impacts will help make it easier to change and improve the appreciation by the public towards the vaccinations.

Lambert, S. B. (2020). Patient Care Drives Mandatory Vaccination. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 337(7680), 1188–1188.

According to Lambert (2020), patient care demands for mandatory vaccination because it seeks to increase its beneficiary of the service. The program runs to make sure that there is a vaccination program that sees them “cut the costs on medical procedures and approaches which is vital for the way that they do achieve their interests (Lambert, 2020)”. It is important to understand that health standards will help make sure that they achieve the best principles and outcomes that would see a conclusive health program. Lambert explained that mandatory vaccination will help cut back on the level of people needing patient care and the rate of illnesses and disease outbreaks that will help improve and change the way that they do connect (2020). It is important to understand that the health principles in the society are to make sure that the population remains healthy and thus it is important to understand the mandatory vaccines will help improve their outcomes. The organization works towards achieving their right outcomes for the majority of its population which is important for the way that they do conduct their goals but it is not the right approach. There is need for democracy in health thus it is important to give people their right to choose which is vital for allowing people to choose to get vaccines or to deter which should be a personal choice.

Cave, E. (2017). Debating the future of mandatory vaccination. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 358.

According to Cave (2017), future vaccination is an important prospect that would help make sure that they do change or improve the health standards across the world. The rate at which there is an increase in the medical risks makes it a major threat thus its mandatory vaccination becoming an important principle. For instance, the recent Covid-19 outbreak that got the entire world on its knees would suffice within a short time with mandatory vaccination. “The previous Spanish flu disease outbreak led to death of millions and vaccinations helped put an end to the disease thus it was a tough lesson (Cave, 2017)”. The possibility of the vaccinations being mandatory is high but it might start with specific directives such as those travelling outside of the country or to certain parts of the country, or healthcare providers, or those working in the public service. The concept will help make sure that there is a minimization of the repeat of the events that threaten the larger population. It is important to acknowledge that the future is seeing the introduction of new principles and laws but it is also a new approach and understanding of the world which influences the democracy level in the country which changes the way that they can improve their interactions and outcomes. Most people will decline mandatory vaccinations with the basis that interferes with their rights which is not appropriate thus it is important to find what works for all the people.

Killmond, M. (2017). Why Is Vaccination Different? A Comparative Analysis of Religious Exemptions. Columbia Law Review, 117(4), 913–952.

Killmond explained that the approach to vaccination is a problem because it is a major political heated topic which makes it integral in all the decision-making processes within the state and country (2017). The vaccination concept is a problem that even led to the Supreme Court to intervene which proves that some people argue on the subject in relation to their religious beliefs. Some religions and denominations have certain demands and directives when it comes to vaccinations and thus it is important to acknowledge and respect such freedoms. People do not need to force the religious beliefs onto the people but instead try to make sure that they do accommodate the interests of the people to help salvage the case. Vaccination is a sensitive topic because it is a political influencing issue and this changes the narrative of numerous people thus it is important to come up with the right prospects to avoid causing numerous issues (Killmond, 2017). Religious exemptions are influential and it is a strong arguing point because it influences a large number of people, because similarly to abortion some religions disagree while other approve which results to a major difference in opinions. It is important to understand that religious background is influential since they do change and have a major influence to the people’s choices and decisions in the society.

References

Cave, E. (2017). Debating the future of mandatory vaccination. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 358.

Jones, L. (2019). Mandatory Vaccination. The American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 13–13.

Killmond, M. (2017). Why Is Vaccination Different? A Comparative Analysis of Religious Exemptions. Columbia Law Review, 117(4), 913–952.

Lambert, S. B. (2020). Patient Care Drives Mandatory Vaccination. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 337(7680), 1188–1188.

Offit, P. A., & Salisbury, D. M. (2021). Childhood vaccination: should it be mandatory? BMJ: British Medical Journal, 344(7858), 18–19.

ETHICS ASSIGNMENT MILESTONE TOPIC SELECTION 2

Mandatory Vaccination

Violeta Morales

Chamberlain University

March 20, 2022

Topic: Mandatory Vaccination

Mandatory vaccination is an ancient practice that has remained a controversial issue due to variance in beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. Since vaccines were introduced in 1796, there have been people in support of the practice while there have also been other against vaccines. The case has only gotten worse with the government making some vaccines mandatory as the determined compelled those against vaccines to feel like their feelings and rights have been violated by the government. at the same time, the government leaving people exposed and vulnerable to contagious diseases has led to massive negative effects a situation that has compelled the government to go against the wish and desires of some people. There are a lot of reasons shared by both parties and the challenging thing is that all arguments are valid hence creating an intense ethical or moral dilemma on the issue.

The supporters of mandatory vaccinations claims that vaccines save lives since infectious diseases are leading killers for instance polio, tetanus, chickenpox, measles, and the recent corona virus among others (Orient, 2019). Secondly, the supporters claims that vaccines boosts the body’s immune system and this makes the body able to handle even other underlying conditions that could have affected overall wellbeing of the person.

On the other hand, the opposers of mandatory vaccinations claim that vaccines have string side effects and there are many instances they have weakened the body’s natural immune system. This is because the body is created in a manner it has a natural method of fighting diseases and hence vaccines only compromises the original body version (Giubilini, 2021). The second reason shared by those opposing vaccines is that vaccines are made from chemicals and it is for this reason that some people have still suffered other complications to the point of suffering death despite having been vaccinated.

According to MacDonald, et al., (2018); Ethical Egoist is a person that makes a moral decision guided by pure self-interest. On the case of Ethical Egoist, such a person is likely to support the perspective that he/she would feel would suit personal interests on the matter. In the case the ethical egoist would have a direct link and benefit from the act of having people vaccinated, he/she would support the idea not because it is good but because he/she is benefiting. On the other hand, it he/she is not benefiting in any way, he/she is likely to go against the mandatory vaccinations claiming they violate human rights. The reason for this is that ethical egoist are always in support of things they would benefit and can highly all benefits while shadowing negative effects and always talks ill of things they feel are not of any importance to them even though they have a general benefit to others (MacDonald, et al., 2018). Whenever there is no benefit, ethical egoists are more focused on negativity of the issues than the positivity of an issue.

Looking at the mandatory vaccinations moral controversy issue; it is evident there is a conflict between loyalty to self and to community. A majority of the people are more focused on loyalty to self by looking at the gains they would have as individuals as compared to community benefits. As a long as people feel they do not have any direct benefit as individuals, they tend to argue against vaccines overlooking the general benefit the society is having (Orient, 2019). At the same time, many people make use of the knowledge they have, personal beliefs, and attitudes towards an issue to make a decision that would affect a community. Nevertheless, the fact that vaccines affects the society, loyalty to self should be overlooked and people applying good interest for others to make a general decision. This being the case, vaccines should be viewed from the perspective of how they have benefited the society and not a few people as this is the morally acceptable perspective.

Social contract ethicists are people that claim people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that established political and moral rules of behaviors. On the case of mandatory vaccines, the social contract ethicists would support vaccinations since they have proven to have more benefits than challenges a situation that communicates morally and interest of the majority (Giubilini, 2021). The more reason is that social contract ethicists are more focused on morals than self-interests and this means it is the well-being of the society that takes center stage. From this perspective, it is evident there is a collision between personal obligations and national ones. This is because social contract ethicists are nationalists that focus on taking care of national obligations overshadowing their personal obligations despite the desire to have their attitudes and feelings on the issue taken into consideration. This is the action that best suits the situation where personal interests should be left aside while national interests uplifted for the wellbeing of the majority (Orient, 2019). The more reason is that when the interest of the majority is considered, mandatory vaccines would be supported or opposed from morally acceptable arguments and not because a single or few people like or do not like them.

References

Giubilini, A. (2021). Vaccination ethics. British medical bulletin, 137(1), 4-12.

MacDonald, N. E., Harmon, S., Dube, E., Steenbeek, A., Crowcroft, N., Opel, D. J., … & Butler, R. (2018). Mandatory infant & childhood immunization: Rationales, issues and knowledge gaps. Vaccine, 36(39), 5811-5818.

Orient, J. M. (2019). Vaccine Controversies: the Case for Freedom and Informed Consent. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 24(3).

Week 7 Assignment: Course Project Milestone – Final Paper

Required Resources

· Read/ Textbook: Chapter 12

· Lesson

· Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (This includes the sources from the annotated bibliography. Additional sources may be included as appropriate.)

Instructions
Return to the topic you chose in the week three assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.

· Summarize the dilemma.

· Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.

· Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.

Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three). Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc.  State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.

What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer

Next, apply the following:

· Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma

· Utilitarianism to the dilemma

· Natural Law ethics to the dilemma

Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?

Why do the other two not work or not work as well?

 Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?

Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.) 

Include a reference page at the end of your paper in APA format that includes your bibliography with the annotations removed and any other sources used in your final paper.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

· Length: 4-5 pages (not including title page or references page)

· 1-inch margins

· Double spaced

· 12-point Times New Roman font

· Title page

· References page (minimum of 5 scholarly sources)