Doe 1

Jane Doe
Mrs. Sattler
ELA
11 April 2014
To Poke or Not to Poke
Trips to the doctors office for annual shots litter childhood memories across the country. Some
children accept the pending poke as a necessary evil, while others cry and fuss and do anything
possible to avoid that fateful trip to the doctors office. While children fail to see a benefit to
those painful moments, vaccines have led to dramatic declines in disease prevalence and related
mortality (Conway and Green). The medical definition of a vaccine is a substance that is
usually injected into a person or animal to protect against a particular disease (MerriamWebster) however, when considering the full definition, the substance is further described as
a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent
organisms (Merriam-Webster). These microorganisms present the human body with a weaker-or dead--version of the virus which can usually be overcome by the immune system and the
development of antibodies. The body then remembers that virus, and is able to fight it off upon
subsequent exposure to the full-strength version we encounter in daily life. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, childhood diseases which are now preventable due
to immunizations include: measles, mumps, pertussis, and varicella. These medical terms often
sound foreign, but when described as whooping cough and chickenpox, pertussis and varicella
take form in the minds of adults who have suffered through these diseases as they remember the
discomfort and pain associated with those illnesses. Many commonly immunized diseases led to
epidemics in earlier years and these epidemics were the catalyst for the push in the scientific and

Doe 2
medical fields to develop vaccinations which might prolong life. Although vaccinations were
highly sought through the 19th and 20th centuries, in recent years an anti-vaccination movement
has begun among some professional doctors, other health professionals, and parents. These
professionals and parents have performed research to test the quality of the vaccinations
recommended for children, the potential side effects, and the overall effect on health and now
call into question the benefits of many vaccinations. Today, supporters and non-supporters
disagree on the overall effect of vaccinations on health and the issue of choice associated with
childhood immunizations.
For instance, when considering overall public and individual health associated with
vaccinations, both supporters and non-supporters offer valid points which strengthen their
argument. For example, a study comparing disease prevalence in 2006 with historical highs for
those same diseases...before vaccines were introduced showed an average 92% decrease
attributed to the introduction of vaccines (Conway and Green). The fact that diseases which are
now immunized have virtually disappeared from society gives a strong indication that public
health has benefited from the use of vaccines. Additionally, Conway and Green report that there
has been a 99% decline in potential mortality associated with these illnesses. Although some
credit must be given to overall advancements in the medical community for better care for and
treatment of commonly immunized diseases, the vaccines must receive some credit as well for
the high rates of survival across the country. While there will likely always be extreme cases of
rare diseases and illnesses which confound the medical community, vaccines are only developed
on those diseases which affect public health because of their communicability and very common
appearances in the United States (Vaccine-Preventable Childhood Diseases). On the other
hand, non-supporters argue that reactions to the vaccine itself are a cause for concern, since no

Doe 3
serious reaction is considered acceptable because this is...preventive medicine given to otherwise
healthy children (Humiston). All administered immunizations come with a fact sheet listing
potential side effects, and parents and practitioners who oppose immunizations claim those side
effects are unacceptable given the child was healthy at the time of the administration of a
vaccine. Consider the MMRV (Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella) vaccine: despite the
benefits of avoiding these nasty diseases, the shot itself contains risks. For example, and
vaccination is capable of causing severe allergic reactions (CDC). These reactions are often
categorized as mild, moderate and severe; however, there is the potential that the child would not
have experienced any of these side effects without the interference of the immunization.
Examples of mild reactions include 1 out of 5 children experiencing fevers and 1 out of 20
reporting rashes. There are reports of rare problems as severe as deafness, brain damage,
seizures, coma, and temporary low platelet counts (Vaccine Information Statements). Those
who argue against vaccinations claim that these side effects have the potential to cause more
harm than the disease that a child may or may not contract. Likewise, vaccinations have been
argued against because mercury, contained in vaccine preservatives, has been linked to brain
and kidney damage (Humiston). The oath sworn by all doctors to do no harm is put to the
test when medically advised injections contain harmful substances which have the potential to
kill, and non-supporters of vaccinations are concerned about other ingredients of vaccinations
whose dangers have yet to be discovered. Despite harsh arguments between the two sides of this
controversy, both supporters and non-supporters agree that some vaccinations are more valuable
than others, some are more dangerous than others, and it is possible to consider immunizations
on a case-by-case basis.

Doe 4
Another aspect of the critical issue surrounding vaccinations concerns the autonomy of
parents, and whether or not they should be allowed to decline immunizations for their children.
Proponents of childhood immunizations claim that the recurrence of contagious diseases and
recent outbreaks have placed a strain on the resources of public health systems and the families
of infected children (Conway and Green). Not only do parental decisions to refuse vaccinations
affect their children, but some researchers suggest that the unvaccinated are causing new
outbreaks to take place in the United States. These outbreaks demand the time, personnel, and
resources of the medical community - all of which cost money. The financial strain of epidemics
is a burden for both the public as well as the families who become infected with the disease.
Similarly, it is argued that parent refusal to vaccinate leaves more than just their children at risk
for disease (Humiston). Parents who claim they have the right to make decisions for their own
children meet resistance when evidence suggests the unvaccinated heighten dangers of exposure
to the vaccinated or adults who may suffer a relapse of a disease from their own childhood. As
well as the potential cost of an epidemic, supporters of vaccinations argue that there are
economic benefits to society when the public receives vaccinations. For example, according to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every $1 spent on vaccination saves the public
$6.30 in medical costs that would result from having to treat unvaccinated diseased individuals
(ProCon.org) There is no way around the cost of medical care or prevention, so those who
support vaccinating children consider the financial benefit an additional perk. In contrast, nonsupporters of vaccinations claim parents deserve the freedom to choose whether or not their child
receives immunizations. One reason to argue for choice about immunization participation is that
all vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural
immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through

Doe 5
fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox.
Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves
children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections (ProCon.org). Since parents are
charged with the wellbeing of their own children, it is their right to either pursue or reject
immunizations which could potentially weaken the immune system and lower the quality of life
for that child. Furthermore, many parents object to vaccinations based on religious grounds.
Certain religions credit illness and disease to the hand of God, and to interfere in that destiny is
to try to change the will of God. Denying parents the right to make decisions about
immunizations based upon their religious beliefs violates the 1st Amendment, which guarantees
American citizens the right to free exercise of their chosen religion (ProCon.org). The
fundamental issue comes down to inherent freedoms as people, but at the same time, the issue of
cost is influential as well. In opposition to the assumption that vaccinations save the public
money, many parents cannot afford the cost of immunizing their children for each required shot.
According to Dr. Molinari and her associates, vaccinations for one child can cost between $0 and
$652 depending on the level of insurance. Even more alarming is the fact that most of the cost
associated with vaccinations takes place in the first year of a childs life (Molinari et al.). Many
young parents and young families simply do not have the money to support 15 immunizations
suggested for each child.
In conclusion, while the two sides to the argument surrounding childhood immunizations
agree on little, it is certain that the issues of public health and the freedom of choice will
continue to impact decisions for decades to come. Parents and physicians who oppose
vaccinations will continue to speak out about their freedoms, inherent rights, and their ability to
make safe decisions for their own families. Supporters of vaccinations will continue to educate

Doe 6
the public about the benefits of vaccinations, with the end goal of reaching a disease and
epidemic-free society. Whether or not these goals will ever be met is difficult to say, but as the
medical and scientific fields advance in the years to come, this debate will press on with new
arguments and data.

Works Cited
Conway, James H.., Green, Tiffany.. Childhood Immunization Policies and the Prevention of
Communicable Disease. Pediatric Annals. 3(2011):136. eLibrary. Web. 31 Mar.
2014.
Humiston, G, Sharon.. The Stubborn facts of vaccine safety. Pediatric Annals 7(2001):385.
eLibrary. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Molinari, Noelle-Angelique M., Maureen Kolasa, Mark L. Messonnier, and Richard A.
Schieber. "Out-of-Pocket Costs of Childhood Immunizations: A Comparison By Type of

Doe 7
Insurance Plan." Pediatrics 120.5 (2007): 1148-56. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
"Vaccine-Preventable Childhood Diseases." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 Feb. 2012. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.cdc.gov/>.
Vaccine Information Statements. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 21 May. 2010. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.cdc.gov/>.