Immunization rates are significantly decreasing in many countries, causing an increase in mortality and morbidity from vaccination-controlled illnesses. Giubilini (2020) defines vaccination as an effective, simple, and safe way of protecting individuals against harmful diseases before they experience them. It uses a person’s natural defense to create resistance against a particular infection, therefore, strengthening the body. Immunizations protect against approximately twenty illnesses and save around three million individuals yearly (Giubilini, 2020). However, individuals have distinct views about vaccination, with some accepting it and others refusing.
Every person has a right to refuse vaccination and should not be condemned. Therefore, the school board should listen to the parents’ concerns and determine if their reasons are valid. There are various reasons why guardians reject their children to be vaccinated, including religious beliefs, philosophical or personal perspectives, safety issues, and the desire to get informed by healthcare professionals (Giubilini, 2020). The most significant problem is children’s safety, but this can be reversed by involving healthcare providers or other acquaintances. Caregivers fear that the immunization will do more harm than good, for example, lowering their children’s immunity and exposing them to severe illnesses. These guardians can assume that the injection will not benefit the child if they contact a preventable disease (Giubilini, 2020). Additionally, some believe that natural immunity is better than the vaccinated one. Religious parents might assume that immunization interferes with their faith that God protects people more than the vaccination (Arora et al., 2018). Consequently, people can be unsure about the essentiality of immunization, therefore, require clarification about its pros and cons from healthcare providers.
The school board could decide to educate parents about the vaccination if they raised uninformed concerns. Giubilini (2020) asserts that explaining the importance of immunization to the parents might minimize their fears and they will eventually accept it. Caregivers should be told that diseases such as measles, tetanus, or influenza kill about twenty million individuals annually (Arora et al., 2018). Therefore, immunization protects people and those around them, for example, those with severe diseases (Giubilini, 2020). Vaccination helps the body produce antibodies to fight illnesses after recognizing a germ, such as bacteria or viruses. Individuals should understand that vaccines contain weakened or killed germs and do not cause diseases or put them at risk of complications.
Vaccination helps the immune system fight and destroy a germ in the future before a person becomes unwell. Giubilini (2020) explains that people remain protected against illnesses for years, decades, or the entire life when the body is exposed to one or more vaccine doses. Caregivers should understand that immunization is effective because instead of treating an illness after it happens, they prevent individuals from getting sick in the first instance (Arora et al., 2018). Vaccination minimizes people’s risk of infection and their ability to transmit bacteria or viruses to others (Giubilini, 2020). Therefore, lowering the circulation of pathogens in the community protects individuals who cannot be immunized because of health issues such as the aged or those with allergies.
In conclusion, the school board should engage parents and determine why they might refuse their children’s immunization because every person has the right to decide what they want. Vaccination protects individuals and society against the adverse effects of diseases such as measles. The board can involve healthcare professionals to educate guardians about the benefits and effectiveness of immunization because safety concerns are the primary reasons for refusing vaccination.
References
Arora, K. S., Morris, J., & Jacobs, A. J. (2018). Refusal of vaccination: A test to balance societal and individual interests. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 29(3), 206. Web.
Giubilini, A. (2020). An argument for compulsory vaccination: The taxation analogy. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 37(3), 446-466. Web.