Student`s name
Professor`s name
Course
Date of submission
ETHICAL RESPONSE ON VACCINATION
Abstract
Choosing between getting a vaccine should be a personal drive and motive that won’t require an external push from stakeholders. Not taking into consideration the effects of not being vaccinated and how negative the impact can be on people around you should be a reason to claim and seek health independence for every human being. The guiding ethics vaccination provides for the individuals to participate in the process for the sake of public health and those who haven’t. Despite f that, mandatory vaccination could be viewed as a form of discrimination, denial of freedom of making personal choices, and in cases where the refusal Is linked to religious beliefs, this could be termed as purposely denying citizens to participate in religious beliefs. This article will base an insightful discussion and response based on the articles written by Jessica Flanigan, a defense of compulsory vaccination and Kowalik’s ethics of vaccine refusal. Also, the demonstration of understanding, criticization, and objection of arguments based on the two articles stated about the outbreak of Covid 19.
According to (Jessica 1, 12, 15 &21), There should be a prohibition on decisions to make in terms of whether to take vaccines or not. Taking vaccines should be mandatory for people so that they can live harmoniously in society. The government should induce heavy fines on people who refuse to follow the order because it is a risk to and for everyone. Flanigan J, compares the situation brought about by the vaccination processes to firing stray bullets in a residential area. This exposes several people to harm associated with the celebration that could be occurring. The person in charge of firing and injuring individuals could deny the charges, but until then, it’s crystal clear that they are liable for the charges. In other countries and several states of America, where firing bullets is illegal, the same case could be related to health care whereby people who won’t be taking vaccines be charged in the court of law. More so, vaccination could be highly required during instances where illness being vaccinated against is very contagious; for example, Covid 19, those exposed are not liable to it, vaccination is necessary and effective, and whereby the whole procedure of vaccination does not violate rights and self-defense of those taking it. Those who are not vaccinated are equally harmful to immune-suppressed individuals e.g., HIV patients, cancer, newborns, and organ transplant patients. However, companies are not supposed to forcefully or expose members to harmful agents that could also cause them suppression; this goes to the fact that despite vaccines being an efficient method of handling immunizable diseases, it caters to only 75% efficiency. In most cases, in order to curb the spread of a disease, violation of culture is allowed for the sake and safety of the whole society. This is according to the scenario that took place 100 years when the British came in to control the spread of smallpox.
Michael Kowalik is an independent researcher from an Australian university who wrote an excellent article based on the ethics of vaccine refusal in 2021 meant to shape and give a foresight of what it takes by not going for the vaccine of that deadly disease. In his article, he dealt with several issues which includes; mandatory universal vaccination for the sake of everyone else who snot in capabilities of taking the vaccine. Governments are also supposed to permit health officers to force citizens to take vaccines which are important to individuals. He also stated that any disease that is termed as harmful is a disaster that, when not managed, can cause a lot of problems to those who won’t have followed instructions. In his intensive research, he concluded that the human ethics around health and vaccination could be according to herd immunity and the free-rider dilemma, which states that the risks can never be related to the benefits of the herd community (Kowalik 2). Also, self-constitution and inherent risk are whereby people with ontological links should not consider moral values and the social images being able to define their decision in terms of deciding whether to take vaccines or not. The benefits associated should be of greater importance.
Scientists coming up with a Covid 19 vaccine was the best upfront step taken globally, which required everyone’s implementation. The disease was announced to be harmful, and by a sort period, it was very disastrous in that it was declared a global pandemic. Everyone who lived to see how it ravaged and shut down super countries like Italy, the united states, and china can agree that the trend in infection and its effects were unsafe. The lockdown, imposed in most states, was supposed to curb it and prevent much spread. The daily routine and practices of people were to be ignored for the sake of the there individuals’ healthy beings. From the statistics taken from those infected and succumbed, most of the individuals were vulnerable to it due to underlying medical conditions, e.g., hypertensive, diabetic, and cancer. To ensure that the spread won’t take more spread, the particular groups were considered first when the vaccination program began. Medical practitioners, army, and transport sectors were considered first because they provided essential services. The youthful population was also highly encouraged to participate in mass Covid vaccination( Raciborski et al 6). The process was catapulted by scientists coming up with more vaccines, i.e., AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson, and Pfizer vaccines. This was done to take care of those people who were in their old age and are suffered from several underlying conditions; their bodies could not fully respond positively to the vaccines the youth were to take for their sake. The vaccination process faced a lot of resistance and defiance from religious and even political groups who thought that the vaccine was not an excellent option for the community; the government of the United States of America had to take the mandate of ensuring everyone adhered to the ministry’s wish. Since the disease is transmitted through contact with fluids of infected individuals, some measures are being implemented, e.g., ordering those without vaccination certificates not to visit public places, use public transport, and fully interact with the other population of `safe` individuals( little et al 13, 15, 22).
The Covid 19 vaccine has been made optional for citizens of many countries. This is a way of making them correspond to the rights of people as stipulated in various constitutions. As most individuals could argue out that maybe the process of vaccination shouldn’t be optional and at the same time dictate that people should follow specific regulations, it is a simple call that everyone should consider being vaccinated. People should not consider their moral or religious influences to mishandle the health benefits associated with taking the vaccine. The regions where the vaccine was made mandatory have been reportedly improved in managing the spread. The fight is not only against the disease but also to salvage the immune-suppressed and other vulnerable members of society who depend on us.
Conclusion
It’s formal that human decisions and actions and the social norms will either support or bring down the value of human life. Failure to take care of the concerns in honor of other people will devalue us. Therefore, the justification and implementation of mandatory vaccination of deadly diseases e.g. Covid 19 is made based on the implications of ignoring the consequences. The policies made to guard and guide the procedures of vaccinations have been tested before and are therefore efficient. It`s the role of the government to make sure that it is possible.

Works cited
Raciborski, Filip, et al. “Changes in Attitudes towards the COVID-19 Vaccine and the Willingness to Get Vaccinated among Adults in Poland: Analysis of Serial, Cross-Sectional, Representative Surveys, January –April 2021.” Vaccines 9.8 (2021): 832.
Kowalik, Michael. “Ethics of vaccine refusal.” Journal of Medical Ethics (2021).
Little, Deirdre T., Elvis I. Šeman, and Anna L. Walsh. “COVID-19 Vaccination: Guidance for Ethical, Informed Consent in a National Context.” Issues in Law & Medicine 36.2 (2021).
Flanigan, Jessica. “A defense of compulsory vaccination E28094” (2021)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.