Mandatory Childhood Vaccination vs Parental Choice
Vaccination
Parenting
Personal choices
Many childhood diseases can now be prevented through the use of vaccines. Should parents be made by law to immunise their children against common diseases or should individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?
Every infant needs an aid of protection from any danger at their early age. One of the most predominant perils is absolutely illnesses. Any disorder can be able to face them with the risk of death, even a single flu because children are vulnerable and a potential target for viruses and other threatening creatures. Their immunity system is just started to grow and improve. If they are not fed well and protected from hazardous effects the immune system cannot thrive and the body will destroy soon.
That's why they are in need of their protectors at certain ages of weakness. It is evident that these protectors are their parents or responsible relatives. Hands of kind-hearted and generous parents are especially given for that reason. From the birth to the age of being an individual, parents look after their children with great patience and attention.
They devote their whole life to pay attentions to their protection like precious jewellery. This dedication includes health, happiness, culture and other qualities of their own personality. In front of those all health of their children is most crucial one. Kind-hearted parents always want their children to be healthy, because of that they immunise them very well. In their opinion, it is their obligation to do that. Unfortunately, some parents are in the other mind. They refuse to inoculate their children. It must be a scandal, because if parents decline to vaccinate them, then who should do the issue.
I think it is obviously the obligation of parents to grow up and immunise their children. Another variant could not be perceptible. And the government should impose a law for this type of parents to either immunise their own children or pay the expense of looking after them.
Estimated band6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Response 02
347 words
In spite of the fact that parents can make their decisions in terms of immunising or not immunising their children from deadly diseases, they have to feel a responsibility to their children. From my point of view, it must not be optional and all children have to be vaccinated.
We all know that children who are less than 6 or 7 age are vulnerable to diseases and should have fatal results or big problems in their forthcoming future life if they are not protected from heinous diseases. Though these childhood illnesses might seem very simple, parents must pay attention to their children who are at these ages. By the way, it must not be voluntary for parents to decide what they must do. It is also the future of the country and the nation in terms of having a strong nation. Namely, children comprise the basis of education in the country, so children have a bulk and vital role in the country in terms of education and future. For this reason, governments have to make something special for that, such as legislations. These sorts of regulations will make parents feel responsible for their children.
Children, who suffer from deadly diseases and get affected by that in future, actually start hating their parents. Think about how sad it would be when a child suffers from physical disability only because his parents decided not to vaccinate him in his childhood? That is something we never want to happen to our nation. Actually, there are also some families who want to immunise their children but haven't got sufficient budget to spend for that. In that way, governments have to undertake immunising such children and assign subsidies for those of children. People haven't got the rights not to vaccinate their children. This is not an option, this is a must. Because it is inhumane for both children and parents who might become the victim of deadly diseases.
To sum up, parents must be responsible for their children and they mustn't choose to immunise or not immunise, that should be a must for parents.
Estimated band7.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
Response 03
380 words
In today’s era, the frailing and plummeting health and health indexes respectively are dwindling to a harrowing extent. In such a case, some people side with an opinion that it should be obligatory for all the parents to have their children vaccinated, while significant others opine that it is a subjective choice to go for the vaccination of their children. I find myself agreeing with the former statement and in the paragraphs to come, I shall proffer my viewpoints on the topic.
The dip in the health statuses is a very common and horrendous situation these days, with novel viruses and pathogens coming into the picture. Humanity is going through a ghastly time where every single individual seems to be in the clutch of perils. Therefore, it becomes all the more significant for the people to bolster their health right from the beginning of their lives and ensure that their children are vaccinated and immunised against various diseases that could indent their health in the times to come. For instance, various menacing viruses and pathogens in the past have been eradicated due to vaccination and this way, various causes of epidemics and plagues are nowhere to be found today.
Talking about the added advantages of early immunisation, it is significant from various other aspects such as economic purview as well. For instance, getting a child vaccinated against the perilous pathogens can help him/her ward off the economic breakdown that s/he might suffer in the future due to enervated immunity, and not getting vaccinated could cost his/her family members heavily not only from the viewpoint of money spent on the treatment but also their emotional drain in the prophylactic processes. Adding to that, getting vaccinated might help one to steer clear from getting attacked by pathogens of similar nature. For example, the Covid-19 vaccine helped people tackle well from the mutated strand of the virus- Omicron. Hence, this makes immunisation substantially quintessential and the earlier it gets done, the better.
Though some might say that immunising children is seemingly pedantic and finicky, one must not forget that prevention is better than the cure.
Therefore, we may state that vaccination and immunisation of children should be made compulsory for the parents, and there is no second way for this.
Estimated band7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Response 04
229 words
Some people argue that parents must be legally compelled to vaccinate their children, while others maintain that such decisions should remain a matter of individual choice. In my view, parents should not be forced into immunisation, as it infringes upon personal freedom and may undermine trust in healthcare systems.
Firstly, mandatory vaccination policies can be seen as a violation of parental rights. Parents are the primary caregivers and have the moral and legal authority to decide on their children’s well-being. Forcing them to vaccinate could lead to resentment and even resistance. For example, in countries where vaccination is compulsory, underground movements often emerge, spreading misinformation and creating more hesitancy rather than less. Respecting parental autonomy, therefore, may encourage dialogue rather than coercion.
Secondly, while vaccines are generally safe, some individuals may have legitimate medical or ethical reasons to avoid them. Children with severe allergies or compromised immune systems might face adverse reactions. Moreover, in diverse societies, some communities hold cultural or religious objections to vaccination. Allowing flexibility acknowledges these differences and fosters inclusivity. For instance, certain indigenous groups in Canada have been granted exemptions due to traditional beliefs, striking a balance between public health and cultural respect.
In conclusion, while immunisation is undoubtedly important, it should not be legally enforced. Instead, governments should focus on awareness campaigns and voluntary participation, ensuring both public health and individual rights are respected.
Estimated band7.5
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
Response 05
253 words
The question of whether we should oblige parents to immunise their children against common diseases is a social rather than a medical one. Since we are free to choose what we eat or drink or how much exercise we take, why should the medical treatment we decide to undergo be any different?
Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes, which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations, which can sometimes result in growth problems in children or even death.
The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. When children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society, which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.
In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must be considered when any decisions are made.
For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.
Estimated band7.5
7.5
7.0
7.5
7.0
Response 06
251 words
The question of whether parents should be legally required to vaccinate their children has generated strong opinions. While some believe immunisation should be a matter of personal choice, I argue that it ought to be obligatory to protect public health and future generations.
To begin with, compulsory vaccination prevents the outbreak of deadly childhood diseases. Illnesses such as measles, polio, and whooping cough once caused countless fatalities, but widespread immunisation has reduced them dramatically. If parents are allowed to opt out, herd immunity can collapse, putting vulnerable populations such as infants and the elderly at risk. For example, recent measles outbreaks in Europe were linked to declining vaccination rates, demonstrating the dangers of leaving immunisation optional.
Moreover, governments have a moral duty to safeguard children’s health. Young children cannot make medical decisions for themselves, so it falls upon society to ensure they are adequately protected. Vaccination is a low-cost, highly effective measure that prevents suffering and reduces healthcare expenses. For instance, the eradication of smallpox through mandatory vaccination programmes saved millions of lives and vast sums of money in healthcare costs.
It is true that some parents have expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines. However, numerous scientific studies have repeatedly demonstrated with consistency that vaccines that have been approved are both safe to use and also very effective.
In conclusion, immunisation should be obligatory because it prevents disease outbreaks and protects vulnerable groups. Although parents may feel their rights are restricted, the greater benefit to public health outweighs individual concerns.
Estimated band8.0
7.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
Response 07
255 words
The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical 'treatment' be any different?
Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.
The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. So when children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.
In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.
For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.
Estimated band8.0
8.0
8.0
7.5
8.0
Response 08
274 words
Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents immunise their children. However, I feel the question is not whether they should immunise but whether, as members of society, they have the right not to.
Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal childhood diseases. As a result of the widespread practice of immunising young children in our society, many lives have been saved and the diseases have been reduced to almost zero.
In previous centuries children died from ordinary illnesses such as influenza and tuberculosis and because few people had immunity, the diseases spread easily. Diseases such as dysentery were the result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now because dysentery has been wiped out.
Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eradicated through national immunisation programmes. In consequence, children not immunised are far less at risk in this disease-free society than they would otherwise be. Parents choosing not to immunise are relying on the fact that the diseases have already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing not to immunise increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases returning.
Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the individual. A decision not to immunise will have widespread repercussions for the whole of society and for this reason, I do not believe that individuals have the right to stand aside. In my opinion immunisation should be obligatory.
A decision each person is free to make for themselves.
From the essay
Some people argue that parents must be legally compelled to vaccinate their children, while others maintain that such decisions should remain a matter of individual choice.
