It is no secret that when opting to receive vaccinations, or any medication for that matter, that you indirectly acknowledge and accept any and all potential health risks and side effects. The chance of experiencing any mild problems, let alone ending up with a life-altering condition, is a chance so miniscule, that the long lists of "cautions" are rarely given more then a quick glance before going ahead with the treatment. Many are led to believe that for one reason or another, they are required to have certain vaccines, whether it be as an infant up until 5 years old, or when they are "all-grown-up" and going off to college. For whatever reason for getting vaccinated, in Michigan, they are (although each state is different) strictly a recommendation, NOT a requirement. This is an important fact that NOT many are aware of, and given all of the possible effects and life changing outcomes, the most controversial of those to be Autism.
With a child that had been diagnosed with Autism, mother and author, Jenny McCarthy, is convinced that the MMR vaccination actually CAUSED his Autism. Wanting to raise awareness, and educate the public on information regarding the dangers and risks that are associated with vaccinations, but more specifically, autism. Taking on the role of the activist, she is getting people to start asking the government and doctors important questions, and to challenge treatments that may not have been thoroughly tested for their safety. She does this along side the well known comedian/actor, Jim Carry. Together they have created an Autism Organization: Generation Rescue.
The organization is aimed at educating other parents that may be experiencing the same traumatizing diagnose that she received of her son, and also to let others know that Autism, she believes, is curable, and on top of that, she also claims that her son is fully recovered! While her beliefs may be 100 percent false, either way she continues to exercise her personal rights autonomy, and with that she and all others are entitled to.
For a parents guide/ information on the MMR vaccine, go here:
Scientists at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston have developed a vaccine that may protect against cocaine addiction. The drug is still years away from FDA approval, but as with many new medical technologies, it raises some profound ethical questions about how, when and in whom it should be used. TIME asked Tom Murray, president and CEO of the HastingsCenter, a bioethics research institute, to answer the most pertinent and thought-provoking questions.
Should we be concerned about giving the vaccine to children?
In general, parents will want to use any tools at their disposal to help their children, and a vaccine that prevents cocaine addiction could well fall into this category. There are a couple of problems, however: The vaccine as currently designed is not for prevention of addiction, but for use by current or former addicts who want to guard against relapsing. The drug is not likely to be tested in children, but if trials in cocaine-addicted adults lead to FDA approval, the vaccine will be available for "off-label" use — meaning that doctors will be free to prescribe it for anything they want.
Plenty of drugs that are not specifically approved for use by children are nevertheless given to them off-label, but medically speaking, children are not merely tiny adults, and scientists cannot predict how children will respond to a drug that has been tested only in adults. Without solid research confirming that the vaccine works in children as a preventive against addiction — without damaging side effects — parents who decide to give it to their children will be exposing them to unknown and possibly serious risks. At a minimum, if children are given the vaccine, doctors should follow them carefully in order to pick up any evidence of side effects.
Since drug addiction is a costly societal problem, should there be mass vaccination? If so, who should pay for it?
If the cocaine vaccine proves to be safe and effective, why not offer it to every adult who is a current or former user? If the vaccine is not outrageously priced and if it safeguards people against relapsing into addiction, it's hard to imagine that it would not yield enormous savings in the long run. The wisdom of mass vaccination, however, is not so clear. Even the safest vaccine has side effects. Complications may be rare, but the more people you vaccinate, the more adverse effects we'll see.
When we balance the risk of side effects against an addict's freedom from the grip of cocaine, uncommon risks are easily justifiable. But when we vaccinate tens of millions of people, most of whom will never get nearer to cocaine than the traces on the $20 bill in their pocket, even a one-in-million risk may be too high.
Will the vaccine exacerbate health care and social disparities, with the rich having more access to it than the less advantaged?
That, of course, depends upon who pays for it. Many of the newer vaccines listed by the Centers for Disease Control run from $75 to $125 a dose at your doctor's office, so it's reasonable to anticipate that a cocaine vaccine could cost upwards of $100 a pop. That's real money for most of us. If common sense prevails, addicts and recovering addicts will get the vaccine at no or nominal cost. It's in everyone's interest — including the health insurer's — to immunize addicts against cocaine intoxication. As for vaccinating children or people who have never used cocaine, until we can be sure that it will be an overall benefit to them, we should hold off. We have plenty of other real injustices in health care to remedy first.
Would people being offered the vaccine be able to give informed consent? Many people with drug addiction suffer from other problems, such as mental illness, and addiction itself might impair consent.
Making certain that someone gives fully informed and voluntary consent is fundamental to good ethics in both treatment and research — especially research. The days of testing new drugs on hapless victims are, we hope, long past. Researchers will have to be sensitive to the challenges of assuring that people enrolled in clinical trials for the cocaine vaccine understand what they're agreeing to and have the clarity of mind to give meaningful consent. The bare fact that a person is or was addicted to cocaine or may suffer from a mental illness does not render them incompetent to consent. But it does require researchers to be especially vigilant to ensure that the person has the mental capacity to consent — and that the vaccine is not being forced on them.
Will biomarkers remaining in the blood after patients receive the vaccine be a "stain" that can be used to discriminate against them for employment, travel, insurance, or legal purposes — even though use of the vaccine does not mean that cocaine was ever taken?
Sometimes wisdom is knowing when to ask someone else. So I asked my dear friend Mark Rothstein to answer this question. He is one of the world's experts on medical information and privacy and the director of the Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. He says: "It's safe to assume that any information that can be used will be used. Obtaining test results will become increasingly easier, as testing technology gets cheaper and electronic health-record networks more efficiently transfer large data files. As a legal matter, to take the example of employment, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals who have engaged in the illegal use of drugs but who have successfully completed or are participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and are no longer using drugs. Therefore, if the vaccine biomarker were used to identify former cocaine users who are no longer using drugs, then discrimination based on a positive test would be unlawful. There are many other contexts besides employment in which the test might be used, however, and it will be necessary to examine (and perhaps amend) various laws to protect against discriminatory use of this information."
Cocaine is an illegal substance. Might use of the vaccine lead to trouble with the law? Or might it be a condition of parole, and is this ethical?
We'd like ethics and law to be good friends or, at least, not complete strangers. But they have different purposes and different ways of reasoning. The biological footprints left in the blood by the cocaine vaccine are not proof that the person ever used the drug. The cocaine molecule itself will leave traces in the body for a while, but it's too tiny to trigger our immune system; that's why the vaccine hooks it up to a larger one. Unless the law goes completely berserk, it won't confuse the antibodies created in response to the vaccine with the drug itself.
What's more likely is that judges and parole boards will look favorably upon addicts willing to take the vaccine, and suspiciously at those who refuse. Rehabilitation is a primary goal of the justice system. There's a good argument to be made that someone whose addiction led to crimes and thence to prison, but who is no longer an addict thanks to the vaccine, has to a significant degree been rehabilitated and deserves to be released. Ethically, however, that looks like a coercive offer: Take the vaccine or go back to the slammer. It's not an unreasonable judgment by the law. But I anticipate a pretty vigorous argument about whether it's ethical.
Autonomy is freedom from external constraint and the presence of critical mental capacities such as understanding, intending, and voluntary decision-making capacity.
The negative side to individual autonomy with immunizations:
Physicians have the training and greater knowledge of the fundamentals of vaccinations and relevant diseases to justify health benefits and risk of an individuals case to be immunized, as opposed to the knowledge held by the general public.
Someone who chooses to be exempt is 35 times more likely to develop a disease that could be prevented through vaccination.
Overall protection to the public and individuals is decreased, if there is no outside intervention to implement vaccinations.
Herd immunity is decreased if many people decide not to get vaccinations.
Transmission is increased. If less people are protected, there is greater risk of spreading the disease.
Total eradication of the disease is less likely to occur and more resistant strains will develop.
An individual’s choice to refuse preventative measures through vaccinations is choosing to risk the chances of dealing with treatment of diseases.
May decide not to get immunized because they believe it is not natural, but a vaccination can help with naturally strengthening the immune system.
Smallpox Eradicated Through Actions of Compulsory Vaccinations
A dramatic example of the benefit to not having individual autonomy is the smallpox epidemic. The World Health Organization required mass vaccinations. All cases discovered enforced vaccinations to those in the household of those infected and vaccinations of those in contact with the household members. In West Africa, it was reported that about 90% of the population received the smallpox vaccine. On May 8th, 1980, the actions of compulsory vaccinations led to the eradication of naturally occurring smallpox, which previously was the cause of over 2 million deaths.
Vaccinations have no doubt been one of the most influential and invaluable tools created in modern medicine. Since it’s discovery and creation, this medical marvel has nearly eradicated smallpox, decreased epidemics, and largely protected against common colds and even chickenpox. However with its success has also come great controversy. One component of the larger debate is whether certain vaccinations should be state mandated or whether it should be a choice left to the parents. Keeping ones autonomy is a central issue in many bioethical debates and is no different with this one. Many parents and non-parents alike feel that personal autonomy is more important than obligation to the public and government and should be taken into consideration and respected. In a public survey that was posted on the website NaturalNews.com, 98% of the participants stated parents should have the right to refuse vaccinations for their children. Though even with considerable statistics like this, an increasing number of states in our country have been fighting to make a number of childhood vaccinations mandatory to enter school. One of the arguments for supporters of mandating child vaccinations is that you are doing your child a disservice. Some even go as far as calling it abuse or neglect if a parent chooses not to get their child vaccinated. Although this view is expressed by a larger number of people, it has weaknesses. A parent is responsible for their child’s well-being and have an obligation and right to raise them how they see fit. For some, not vaccinating their children is the right way to go about this. A parent is considered the primary decision maker for the child until that child is legally an adult, which opponents of this are not taking into consideration. Mandating child vaccinations goes against parental rights and lets an outside source make medical decisions that directly affect the child. It can never be considered neglect or abuse when parents are making a conscious, informed, and well thought out decision to, in their eyes, protect their child and also protect their rights. For example, if a patient refuses treatment in a hospital even though it might greatly help them later in life, it would be against the law to continue treating them. This is no different from a parent refusing to immunize their child even though it might help them later in life. This leads into a main argument in favor of vaccination as a choice: parents should be able to choose what is put inside of their child’s body and what kind of medical treatment is performed on them. An article I found online at the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), provides an example of this argument. L.R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D, spoke to a group at the YWCA and titled this Vaccinations: Public good vs. Individual Rights. Huntoon stated that he wanted to address one question, which was “who should decide what to put in your body?” Huntoon began the discussion with telling a fictional story: “The story begins with the FDA which has a little known advisory committee known as the ACNF - Advisory Committee for Nutritional Food. And their mission is to promote the most nutritional diet in the interest of the public good. After a period of study and deliberations, they came up with Recommended Daily Amounts of each type of food to include at least 3 servings of meat per day, preferably Big Macs, Whoppers and Chicken Dinners. They've called this optimal diet FAD which stands for Federally Approved Diet. They have published their FAD diet and other recommendations in a special government report. Before long, your state legislators took note of this official government report and acting in what they felt was the public's best interest, they passed a law, which made the FAD diet mandatory. And, just to make sure that all citizens follow this government approved diet, the law mandates that neither you nor your children can attend school (including college) unless you eat the government's FAD diet…. So, one day during a class discussion on nutrition your daughter or granddaughter happens to mention that she and her family are.....VEGETARIANS. Well, within a few days her parents receive a very threatening letter from school officials, which makes it clear that the little girl will be expelled from school unless her parents start feeding her the FAD diet. School officials also make it clear that if her parents are particularly stubborn in refusing to comply with the government-mandated FAD diet, that Child Protective Services will be called and they will likely take the little girl away from her parents based on "NUTRITIONAL NEGLECT" of a child. Well, being vegetarians, a very bright and independent thinking group of people, the parents said "Hey, wait a minute.... this is the United States of America, not communist China. Government has no right to tell me what I put into my body or into my child's body." Although this story is completely fictional, it does however represent the very real position we are at today with government-mandated vaccinations. And even though no one could ever compare the effectiveness and health benefits of vaccines to fast food, the point is made and supported. The government can not intervene in any other part of parenting a child so why this? Especially because it is a medical procedure that is pervasive and directly affects the child. Most parents who decide against vaccination are not doing it solely to do it, but because of legitimate reasons and concerns they have learned about. Religion is a central theme in debates surrounding not only personal, educational and public issues but bioethical issues as well. A person’s religion needs to be taken into account in this particular situation of vaccination as a choice as it has been in other areas of medical practice. For example, Christian Science is one religion where members refuse medical treatment of any kind, which would include vaccination. They choose the practice of faith healing to treat members of the religion. However some states do not take this into account or consider it a good enough reason. A factor of not vaccinating that is actually supported by states and the CDC is not vaccinating based on medical grounds. The CDC website gives a list of common child vaccinations and when not to get children vaccinated. For example, they state “people should not get hepatitis B vaccine if they have ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to baker's yeast.” For the MMR vaccine “Some people should check with their doctor about whether they should get MMR vaccine, including anyone who: * Has HIV/AIDS, or another disease that affects the immune system * Is being treated with drugs that affect the immune system, such as steroids, for 2 weeks or longer. * Has any kind of cancer * Is taking cancer treatment with x-rays or drugs * Has ever had a low platelet count (a blood disorder)”
In relation to this parents may also decide against vaccination because of negative side effects and previous cases they have seen. The CDC warns that the DPT vaccine may cause negative side effects because of the Pertussis component in it. Which is exactly what happened to Amy Roehl. After receiving this vaccine she had convulsions and a high fever. After this experience her mother decided not to continue with any other vaccinations except for her Hepatitis B shot. Another case supporting this particular argument is presented in a documentary titled Vaccine Nation. It includes the story of Alan Yurko who in February of 1999, was sentenced to life plus ten years with no chance of parole for child abuse and aggravated murder in the death of this ten-week old son. The medical diagnosis of the baby’s death was shaken baby syndrome. The doctor making the documentary as well as other medical professionals believe a majority of SBS cases to be attributed to a delayed vaccine reaction. Cases like this have affected the views of the public and now want to be more informed before vaccinating children. A last argument is the choice not to get vaccinated for personal reasons. Many people don’t realize how some vaccines are made. For example the influenza vaccine is made with animal products and eggs. Other vaccines are make with monkey and chick kidney cells. And others are made with calf serum and protein. Because of the use of animals as means PETA is a large opponent against vaccination. The Institute for Vaccine Safety has a map of which states accept religious, medical, and personal belief exemptions for child vaccinations:
If parents are choosing not to get their children vaccinated for various reasons based on medical, religious, or philosophical grounds, denying the parents this right would be very ethically unsound and morally wrong. Parents have been threatened with fines and even jail time in states such as New York and Maryland. Children who haven’t been vaccinated have been expelled from schools across the nation. And it has even gone so far that Child Protective Services was called and threatened to take children away if the parents did not comply with state mandations.
Is this a case of keeping ones autonomy and not letting the government or institutions rule what is being put in their own bodies? Or are objectors to the practice neglecting their children’s well being and denying them the best heath possible? Parents not vaccinating their child cannot be considered neglect. They are taking every aspect of their lives into account and consideration and then making an educated and informed choice they feel is best for their child. The government should not be able to take this important parental right away and to do so would be ethically wrong for many reasons.
One of the main vaccine suppliers to the U.S., The Chiron Corp., lost their license due to manufacturing problems right before flu season started.
The CDC urged people NOT to get flu vaccines in order to save supplies for those who truly needed it; babies, the sick, health care works, pregnant women and the elderly.
The CDC held 8 million vaccines for use once flu season began and those at highest risk of dying from it became apparent.
The federal government only has control over vaccine contracts in government owed hospitals.
State laws determine local distribution of vaccines.
The U.S. was not able to get their shipment of 48 million vaccines.
There has been some dispute to whether or not there is inequality in the distribution of vaccination.This inequality exists between social class, racial/ethnic groups, and between age groups.It seems that the greater the gap in income is between the rich and the poor within a country, the lower the life expectancy and higher death rate.This is due health care coverage and the unresponsiveness of the governments in these countries to the needs of the lower class.By modestly increasing national income could support disease prevention, including vaccination, therefore increasing in areas where life expectancy is low.
One case study on the flu vaccine was found that showed the inequality between multiple groups.It focused on vaccination coverage in racial/ethnic inequalities within high risk adults. In the United States, influenza and pneumonia combined were the sixth leading cause of death in 1997 and also lead in the causes for hospitalization.The influenza vaccination is an extremely cost-effective way of decreasing these statistics.Some groups within the population are at more of a risk to having flu related complications.These groups include the elderly and immune deficient.There are also some disparities in the quality of health in certain ethnic and racial groups.It shows that Black Americans are less likely to get the flu vaccine than White Americans.When the researchers looked at patients with two or more high risk conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and asthma, they found that White Americans were more likely to be vaccinated than Black Americans.They also found that in spite of race and ethnicity, people over the age of 65 were more likely to be vaccinated then people 64 years or under.Racial/ethnic disparities were also found to be interdependent of gender, socioeconomic status, and access to health care.It seems that there is some reasoning behind the differentiation of vaccination rates, one being that there are fewer opportunities for people of certain racial/ethnic groups to be vaccinated.If effective strategies were implemented to increase vaccination rates, such as health care providers being sure to offer the flu vaccine to all patients during flu season, then there would be less differentiation in vaccination rates between racial/ethnic groups as well as other subpopulations.
