Mandatory Childhood Vaccination vs Parental Choice

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?

Annotated response

1 correction note

Showing 1 correction note.

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.

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.

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 8.0

The response presents a clear, consistently maintained position with well-developed supporting arguments about individual rights, natural immunity, and medical information. Its strongest aspect is the fluent, precise language and controlled grammar; the main limitation is that some claims are asserted rather than substantiated with concrete evidence or fuller acknowledgement of opposing views.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

7.5

The response addresses the task directly with a clear position against legal compulsion, and ideas are developed across relevant points, though support for some claims remains general rather than evidence-based.

Coherence and Cohesion

7.5

Paragraphing is logical and progression is clear with effective linking devices, although some transitions between claims, such as the leap from statistics to individual rights, could be more fully signposted.

Lexical Resource

8.0

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'mass immunisation programmes', 'potentially harmful practice', and 'vulnerable society', used with only rare lapses in appropriacy.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

8.0

A wide range of structures, including conditionals, rhetorical questions, and relative clauses, is handled with flexibility and accuracy, with errors being rare and non-impeding.