Bastos 1

Bastos, Luz
Logan
ENC4404
February 23rd, 2016
Compulsory Immunization Laws
The rightness and wrongness of compulsory immunization is a very controversial
topic worldwide. In the United States, immunization is primarily regulated by laws that
require proof of a childs vaccinations prior to their enrollment in school. Many people
agreeor rather, complywith the mandate that children receive a number of
vaccinations throughout their development. Others argue that vaccinations are ineffective,
may result in other serious medical conditions, or are invasive to religion or personal
beliefs. Most people who oppose such laws feel that their freedom is being threatened,
and therefore, argue that they should not be forced to receive vaccinations or force their
children to receive them either. The law, however, does leave room for people of most
states to petition against vaccine regulation and be exempt from the requirements. In turn,
there is a large risk of disease contamination in our society. In an era so advanced and
knowledgeable of the benefits of immunizations and the consequences of allowing
certain people to opt out of receiving them, we should not allow the exemption of
necessary vaccinations based off of personal beliefs or religious affiliations, and only
allow medical exemptions. My argument is supported by research and the rules of
Bioethics.
Immunization has been encouraged in our country since not long after this
country became a nation (Jackson 787). Compulsory immunization laws were mandated

Bastos 2
after the United States first saw contamination of poliomyelitis and measles. The first
laws concerning mandatory vaccinations were passed in 1809, under the Common Wealth
of Massachusetts. With the citizens fear that their rights were being obstructed, a strong
opposition against enforcement of vaccinations for protection against small pox rose. In
1905, as a result of a number of trials, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v.
Massachusetts that it is within the individual states police power , the power inherent in
a state to enact and enforce laws and protect and promote the health, safety, morals, order,
peace, comfort, and general welfare of the people, to require their citizens to be
immunized. This case revolutionized public health care; the Supreme Court ruling set
precedent for state lawmakers and resulted in states nation-wide enforcing compulsory
vaccination laws. In 1922, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its Jacobson decision in Zucht
v. King, where it ruled that it is within the states authority to require appropriate
vaccinations as a prerequisite to school admittance (Jackson 789). Alas, in the 30s, the
scope of state immunization enforcement expanded from small pox vaccines to cover a
variety of diseases deemed necessary to keep under control (Jackson 789). The mandate
calling for all children to be immunized before their enrollment in school has been
effective since then.
As most public issues, vaccine mandates are controversial, and for every
argument in favor of them, there is an argument objecting to them. People often object as
a result of their religious beliefs or their personal beliefs that the mandates are invasive,
that they are just another way the government intrudes in citizens personal lives,
affecting their individual freedoms. I am not claiming that they are wrong; yes, this is the
United States of America. Yes, this is a country where we are given the freedom of

Bastos 3
speech, and the freedom to do as we choose. Yes, this country is considered to be the
land of the free. However, this freedom should not be given at the cost of harming
yourself of harming others. Being allowed the choice to choose not to receive the
vaccinations threatens the well being of society. And so, while this is a country of
freedom, we should not be allow people to risk an epidemic, a nationwide endangerment
of our population, merely because people want the option to choose to opt out.
Exemption from vaccinations should only be permitted if a the person is allergic to the
vaccine, or the vaccine would physically or medically harm the individual. And if that is
the case, alternative methods should be sought.
On the other hand, these laws have been supported by humanitarian ideologies
that argue no child should have to suffer from a disease that can be prevented (Jackson
792). That is, it is unethical to risk the health of a child when they can be provided
protection through vaccines. While many are aware of the benefits of vaccinations, others
argue that they cause more harm than they do good, like John Rappoport during his
interview with The Researcher:
At the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they
cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but its true.
The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to
weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a
man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he
was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests.

In reality, oppositions such as these are ill-informed. Bill Gates exemplified the views of
mandated vaccine supporters when he said,
It's an absolute lie that [vaccines have] killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers

Bastos 4
who have heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either the pertussis or
the measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and
engage in those anti-vaccine efforts -- you know, they, they kill children. It's a very sad
thing, because these vaccines are important.

Bill Gates is right. Vaccinations are so essential and beneficial that a number of countries,
such as Australia, actually offer financial [untaxed] incentives to boost compliance
rates (NCIB). I argue that our government should consider applying the same foundation
in our country to boost compliance rates. From an ethical standpoint, getting vaccinated
is the right thing to do. People who do not receive vaccinations are risking their own
health and threatening the health of their society. From a practical standpoint,
vaccinations are economically beneficial. They prevent the immunized, immunecompromised, and unvaccinated from catching diseases and forcing overwhelmingly
large payouts for things like hospitalizations, examinations, treatments, and various
therapies. High compliancy rates for immunizations benefit the nations overall physical
health and economical health (Jackson 792). Therefore, including incentives as a
motivation for our citizens to increase the overall rate of compliancy will be nothing but
beneficial to the health of our society.
Today, the United States has a list of required vaccinations for its citizens in order
to prevent the following: Anthrax, Chickenpox, Diphtheria, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B,
HIB, HPV, Influenza, Japanese Encephalitis, Measles, Meningococcal, Mumps, Pertussis,
Pneumococcal, Polio, Rabies, Rotavirus, Rubella, Shingles, Smallpox, Tetanus,
Tuberculosis, Typhoid, and Yellow Fever (CDC). Enforcing vaccination administration is
usually accomplished by school systems refusing to admit children into schools without
proof of vaccination. As a general rule, the terminology of state immunization Laws

Bastos 5
indicates that major emphasis is on the requirement that all children be adequately
immunized before being allowed to enter school on a permanent basis (Jackson 790).
Requiring children to be up-to-date prior to beginning the school year is an excellent way
to enforce vaccine regulation in our nation. All states have compulsory education laws
requiring all kids to receive a certain level of education. If appropriate vaccination is
prerequisite to mandatory schooling, virtually all school-aged children will be protected
from preventable diseases. Unfortunately, in more than three-quarters of the country,
there are lenient exemptions for those who argue that they have the right to deny
vaccinations. Perhaps we should adopt a system similar to Australias where we provide
some sort of financial incentive that would boost our own compliancy rates in order to
protect our nation from contamination.
Like Mississippi and West Virginia, Florida and other states should eliminate as
many exemptions as possible, and adopt regulations that only allow exemptions arising as
a result of medical conditions (NCIB). Without the proper vaccinations, the parents who
refuse to vaccinate their children are not only putting their child at risk of contracting
deadly and contagious diseases, they are also risking the health of those who interact with
the unvaccinated child. Therefore, we should not allow religious affiliations or personal
beliefs of parents to excuse their children from getting vaccinated and risking the health
of others, who likely have different religious and personal beliefs. Instead, we should
devote resources to public health education initiatives so communities have a deeper
understanding of the consequences of refusing vaccines, and the benefits of receiving
them. This education can be provided to students of schools, soon-to-be parents, and
society in general. Perhaps provide commercials where the benefits are explained. I think

Bastos 6
a sure way of educating people is in doctors offices and hospitals. Perhaps pamphlets
and verbal education should be provided for people when they go visit doctors.
Another argument people raise is that they should be given the right to choose
whether or not to receive a vaccination. Prima facie, this looks like a good point. It is
based on one of the four principles of bioethics: the principle of autonomy. The principle
of autonomy entails that medical experts respect the capacity of people to choose their
own vision of a good life and act accordingly (McGraw). There are requirements
attached to this principle, requirements that are not being adhered to when allowing
parents to force their children not to receive the vaccination. A few include that the
person in question be competent, and thus, able to make autonomous decisions. In order
to be considered competent, a person is expected to have a good understanding of a
situation and be well-informed about relevant facts. Which, in truth is not the case for the
most part when people argue against vaccines; they are often motivated by a
misunderstanding of statistics, or are guilty of following advice from those that lack
credibility. An additional requirement of autonomy is that the decision must be voluntary.
In cases involving whether vaccines should be required before being accepted into a
school, theoften inadequately informedparent is the one making the decision that
could result in the childs contamination because of their very own beliefs, without regard
for what the child would want. This, then, does not leave the decision to be made
voluntarily autonomous by the child, but rather, the parents. It is an ethical desire to make
our own decisions regarding our body and ourselves in general, and it is most definitely
our right; however, it is the responsibility of our nation to abide by the law that states the
government must prohibit acts that might endanger the health of others in the

Bastos 7
community (Jackson 787). By allowing exemptions to such vaccinations is definitely
endangering the health and the lives of society because we would be allowing holes for
diseases to make their way, contaminate individuals, and thus spread. This could
potentially lead to fatal epidemics. A way to approach this could be to devote more time,
efforts, and resources to informing society of the benefits of the vaccines. The
government should put a focus on educating society about the risks that are tied to
refusing vaccinations, as well as ensuring that people truly understand the diseases they
are vulnerable to.
Additionally, the second and third principles of bioethics (non-maleficence and
beneficence) support an argument in favor of creating and enforcing regulations that do
not allow religious exemptions. The principle of beneficence states that we should foster
the interests and happiness of society as a whole. That is, by applying the Hippocratic
requirement that a physician is to do as little harm as possible. They are to refrain from
committing evils and inflicting harm. If a physician is to witness evil or pain inflicted,
they are required by law to remove it, or promote good by preventing the situation from
worsening. Similarly, states can prevent and mitigate harm by excluding exemptions for
religious views that are not necessarily supported by contemporary medical science. The
amount of harm is lessened as much possible by detecting the harmful factor (the
diseases), and protecting individual contamination, which virtually eliminates the
likelihood of massive, nation-wide outbreaks of otherwise preventable deadly diseases.
By enforcing vaccine requirements, we are ultimately removing the harm, preventing
contaminations, and promoting good health. Similarly, the principle of beneficence states
that medical experts must refrain from harming others. By allowing non-medical

Bastos 8
exemptions, people are free to walk around risking their own health, whether they realize
it or not, as well as the health of others. Allowing this does not align with the
expectations of beneficence, increasing the health of society and future patients, and
acting on the best interests of patients (McGraw).
In all, reducing the amount of exemptions from vaccinations to the bare minimum
that is, exemptions for medical reasonsWestern medicine is more aligned with the
last principle of approach for bioethical decision-making, the principle of justice. This
principle embodies the idea that ethical medical decisions are those that fairly distribute
burdens and benefits throughout society. It is ethical to enforce vaccinations since it is
best for the society. Everyone will bear a small, temporary burden of being vaccinated,
but everyone will also be the recipient of a much larger benefit a virtually eliminated
chance of contracting a large number of painful and deadly diseases. This leaves no room
for unjust vaccinations or lack of, and an overall equal distribution. Therefore, while
some people will feel the burden of not being able to act in their own discretion and make
their own decision, equally, the benefits are distributed by removing chances of the
spread of illness.
In essence, many people object the enforcement of compulsory immunization
laws as a result of their religion, philosophical beliefs about government and its control, a
distrust of science, and argument that it is guilty of the violation of providing citizens
with their liberty and basic human rights. At first glance, these objections seem validm
especially in the land of the free. But, compulsory immunization laws both work and
are highly beneficial. They are ethical, beneficial to society, and they promote overall
national health. Mandatory vaccine legislation is often misinterpreted as being too

Bastos 9
intrusive, however, it is a police tool, the power inherent in a state to enact and
enforce laws and protect and promote the health, safety, morals, order, peace, comfort,
and general welfare of the people, and thus has the power to advance public welfare by
restraining the use of liberty and property (Jackson 787). This is effective, and not
necessarily an unjust violation of our right to liberty and religion, as it ensures the health
and overall well-being of individuals and society as a whole. Because it promotes public
health, vaccine exemptions for religious or personal beliefs should be denied, and
exemptions should only be permitted for serious medical reasons.

Works Cited
Arras, John D., London, Alex J., Steinbock, Bonnie. Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine.
8th edition New York: McGraw Hill 2009. Print.
Jackson, Charles L. State Laws on Compulsory Immunization in the United States: A
Review. Public Health Reports. Vol. 84, No. 9. 1969. Pp. 787-95. Web. 17 Oct
2015.
Walkinshaw, Erin. Mandatory vaccinations: The International Landscape. US National
Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. 11 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Oct.
2015.
List of Vaccines Used in The United States. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.

Bastos 10