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.

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 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.

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 7.0

The response presents a clear, consistently maintained position with well-organised paragraphs and relevant supporting examples, showing good language flexibility. The main limitations are that it falls slightly short of the required length, which restricts the depth of development, and some arguments rely on assertion rather than fuller elaboration.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

7.0

The response addresses both sides of the question, presents a clear position throughout, and supports main ideas with relevant examples, though the response is 21 words below the minimum length, limiting full development.

Coherence and Cohesion

7.0

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices such as 'firstly', 'moreover', and 'for instance', used mostly naturally.

Lexical Resource

7.0

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with effective use of topic-related items like 'parental autonomy', 'hesitancy', and 'coercion', though some phrasing is slightly formulaic.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

7.0

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, are used with good control and errors are rare and non-impeding.