Childhood vaccinations present a controversial topic in the U.S., where many parents oppose vaccinations as part of their practice of individual freedom. Applying Kant’s ethics to the moral issues concerning childhood vaccinations can provide valuable insights into the anti-vaxxers’ perspective. Kant’s fundamental moral principle, the Categorical Imperative, can be characterized as a recommendation for people to act in accordance with their perception of what should become a universal law. The principle supports maintaining order in society and provides moral guidance for the population.
Childhood vaccinations protect children from diseases that have long been studied and eliminated by humanity with the use of vaccines. Therefore, applying Kant’s Categorical Imperative to the topic defines that all people should encourage childhood vaccinations to ensure the overall population’s safety, and it is ethical to vaccinate children. Parents that oppose childhood vaccinations often use the harmful effects of vaccinations on children’s health as their main argument. However, the established scientific medical evidence shows that childhood vaccinations are harmless. Thus, the position of anti-vaxxer parents can be perceived as a deviation from the majority under the Categorical Imperative principle. Therefore, the individual’s decision to refuse to vaccinate their child is unethical to others and the child who, unlike other children, has not received proper health protection.
Furthermore, the application of Kant’s ethics to the treatment of humans provides value to manifestations of human autonomy. Thus, the Principle of Humanity states that people should perceive others as equal but never as a means to an end. The principle attaches significant importance to people’s freedom of choice by defining humanity as respect for other people’s freedom of choice. However, in application to the issue of parents’ refusal to vaccinate their children, the Principle of Humanity does not protect their freedom of choice. On the contrary, anti-vaxxer parents use their children as means to practice their freedom of choice, simultaneously depriving their children of freedom of choice. The article from Keenan (2019) explains that adolescents have a similar level of competency in making medical decisions to adults. The article explains that the adolescent child’s decision to get vaccinated despite parental objections should be respected as their freedom of choice. Therefore, following Kant’s Principle of Humanity, parents who are against childhood vaccinations should allow their adolescent children to get vaccinated if they want it.
The anti-vaxxer parents’ counterargument to adolescent child’s decision to get vaccinated can base on the lack of legal grounds for the child to receive the service without parental consent. For example, the article by Keenan (2019) emphasizes that in some states, it is easier for teenagers to get an abortion than get vaccinated without parental permission. Therefore, without parental consent, many adolescents will either be deprived of the protection of their health or forced to receive vaccination in secret. Attempting to get vaccinated in secret can pose significant health risks to the child. Therefore, rather than forcing a child to get vaccinated in secret, anti-vaxxer parents should accept the child’s decisions. Furthermore, anti-vaxxer parents can use brainwashing techniques to deprive children of faith in vaccination effectiveness or inform them about conspiracy theories, distorting their perception of reality. However, such counterarguments are easily addressed with established scientific medical evidence.
My opinion on the issue aligns with the application of Kant’s Principle of Humanity to the topic. Thus, I agree that people have the freedom of choice in their decisions, but forcing others to accept foreign decisions and ideas is unethical and inhumane. Therefore, if the decision not to vaccinate presents an embodiment of human freedom of choice, then the children can make their own decisions about vaccinations given at adolescent age. However, vaccines given at an early age are critical to a child’s survival and, therefore, must be given to all children under Kant’s Categorical Imperative principle.
Reference
Keenan, J. (2019). Meet the teens who want to get vaccinated against their parents’ wishes. Reason. Web.