Vaccinate All Children Act 2015
Name
Institution
Vaccinate All Children Act 2015
Provision of quality healthcare remains to be among
the primary goals of the United States’ federal government. Various policies
have been introduced for the purpose of affordable, efficient, and quality
health for the American people. The “Vaccinate All Children” Act of 2015 is one
of the policies that sought out the provision of medical care to all children
in America through vaccination. The policy would be significant in ensuring the
prevention of communicable diseases against children who stand a higher risk of
contracting fatal infectious diseases due to their tender age and relatively
weak immune systems. Similarly, the Act would ensure that all students in
public schools acquire the mandatory vaccination and therefore, it would be a
requirement for students enrolling in public schools to have received the
treatment. Despite opposition from various organs and individuals, the Vaccinate
All Children Act is of great significance to everyone in the United States
since it curbs the infection of deadly diseases among children and guarantees a
reduced mortality rate for the vulnerable.
Explanation
of the Act
On 1st May 2015, Florida Congresswoman Ms.
Frederica Wilson introduced the Vaccinate all Children Act (Medina, 2015). The bill
required all students attending public schools to receive a mandatory
vaccination with a few exemptions. The exemptions require a letter from a
state-certified physician giving medical reasons as to why vaccination is
harmful to the child. Moreover, children with allergies and weak immune systems
resulting from pressing operations like chemotherapy would also be exempted.
The bill would revise the Public Health Service Act of 1994 that gave the
federal government authority to quarantine individuals for the purpose of
preventing the introduction and spread of transmissible diseases from other countries
and into the United States (Medina, 2015). Despite being a country that has an excellent
reputation in almost all realms, there have been instances where some Americans
have suffered from diseases due to ignorance, philosophical thoughts and also
due to high cost of medications (Medina, 2015).
The introduction of the controversial bill was
accompanied by high expectations among some Americans as others felt the bill
went against their rights due to its obligatory nature. The Act would make sure
that all students joining elementary and secondary public schools have access
to the vaccine. According to Bill, its implementation would be paramount
because the vaccines were proven to be efficient and safe for the Americans
(Bell, 2015). During its introduction, the congresswoman asserted that
childhood vaccinations were paramount for healthy lives of children in America
since it ensured a protected future generation (Medina, 2015). The children who
would forego the exercise exposed themselves from the fatal communicable
diseases and also put others at risk through contamination. Therefore, it would
have been wise for parents who cared for the wellbeing of their children to
comply with the bill since it served the purpose of ensuring a healthy life for
their daughters and sons.
Argument for
the Bill
The federal government has a responsibility of
ensuring communicable diseases are not spread into the American population.
Therefore, the “Vaccinate all Children Act” would be imperative in controlling
transmission of illness upon accidental introduction by foreign visitors. From
a public health perspective, the fact that the vaccination act was compulsory
for the children does not justify the public to oppose the policy because the
exercise poses no risk to the health condition of children (Bell, 2015). As the
bill explicitly states that the vaccines were proven to be efficient and safe,
opposition to the exercise would only be political rivalry devoid of
rationality and assessment on the benefits that lie on having the children
vaccination. The decent idea behind the Act is the preservation of life, and
therefore, opposition to the bill should take a different side for instance,
based on the criteria used to administer the vaccinations and not the
vaccination itself (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). In the American population,
not all Americans are capable of accessing quality medical check-ups for their
family members due to economic statuses. Some of the vaccinations could be
expensive for a low-income earner to foot.
As a government’s responsibility, administration of
vaccines to school going children is the most feasible technique to guarantee a
healthy youthful population. When the exercise is left in the hands of the
civilians, there would be various assumptions for the invisible infections. For
instance, others would argue that their children are healthy because the family
lineage has no record of contracting contagious diseases (Medina, 2015). However,
the Act would be indiscriminate to all children and therefore guarantee every
child’s immunity. Additionally, due to different eating habits from diverse
societies across America, some families are more vulnerable to contracting the
diseases. Therefore, mandatory vaccination legislation would be well-suited for
such groups in the communities since they possibly do not have adequate
knowledge on the factors that could expose their children to the pronounced
risk of diseases. For instance, in 2015, there were more than 100 cases of
communicable diseases in California despite the federal government’s previous
efforts to eliminate the maladies (Medina, 2015).
The only way through which the government can show
affection to the health and safety of children is through vaccination. The
exercise must be compulsory since in the recent past, America has received a
significant number of immigrants. The immigrants could be diseases carrier. According
to previous studies, there has been proof that public elementary and secondary
schools have recorded the highest number of communicable diseases infections
(Bell, 2015). If the federal government leaves anything to chance with such a record,
it would be a disaster. Therefore, the vaccination process should not be
subject to exemption over insignificant justifications from opponents. As the nature
of politics is, there has to be opposition. However the government has the
power to enact critical policies that threaten the existence and strength of
the American people regardless of the people’s uproar (Efthimios & Douglas,
2017). Therefore, the Act would mean a stronger America, devoid of health
challenges and risks.
Additionally, the enactment of the statute would translate
to reduced expenditure in the treatment of the serious diseases. It is always
wise to prevent than to cure. Therefore, the bill was futuristic because
families without medical covers would have reduced cases of overspending in
treatment (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). Notably, a vaccinated child would
rarely visit the hospital for diagnosis and treatment of communicable diseases.
Also, a vaccine is not worth taking the risk of a child’s life. Furthermore,
the authority of the federal government to quarantine may seem to be divisive
from a social perspective. For instance, a child whose friend is isolated for
being diagnosed with communicable diseases may live with the fear to associate
with the friend again. Therefore, the bill as a health policy would provide for
an American society that does not incur huge cost of disease treatment upon
infection and a young generation that does not suffer from the separation
between the infected and healthy.
Counter
Argument
The introduction of the act elicited mixed reactions
across America. One of the arguments among the opponents is that the law was
against the free exercise right (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). From a legal
perspective, the claim against the act could be accurate, a move that could
nullify the enactment of the “Vaccinate all Children Act.” The free exercise
clause prevents the Congress from enacting legislation that curtails the
people’s freedom of worship and exercise of religion (Efthimios & Douglas,
2017). In this context, opponents of the “Vaccinate all Children” felt that the
bill infringed on their social right, a move that is against the constitution.
The bill stated that it would put no consideration or exemptions for the
vaccination on the religious and philosophical basis (Medina, 2015). Therefore,
it means that every child in America at the opportune age of receiving the
injection is obliged to receive the vaccine. The American population is
multifaceted in the realm of religious conviction. There are those who are
convinced that one should not seek medication on earth because God is the one
who gives and takes away life. Such doctrinal beliefs would not accommodate
anything equivalent to vaccination for all children. Additionally, the bill
would not exempt anyone from undertaking the vaccine by philosophical model. In
the constitution, every person has the freedom of thought and one’s thought may
be against the administration of the vaccine to the child. Therefore, from a
broad perspective, mandatory vaccination would mean infringement on the people’s
right and freedom (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017).
The policy of mandatory vaccine before entering
elementary and secondary school could also yield a high number of
home-schooling students. The parents who feel the enactment of the bill as a
violation of their rights may decide to have their children remain at home and
learn from there. The move to have children to study from home is not
commendable because not all parents would have the ability to provide all
necessities for learning and development of the children. Additionally, the
children who learn from home lack crucial social skills. The social life of
making friends and interacting with different people from all walks of life is
always not part of home-schooling. In this context, the children would lack the
skills in the job market whereby, they may find it difficult to associate with
workmates. Furthermore, some parents believe that by not having the vaccination
and contacting the disease, the child develops immunity against the illness
(Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). Such groups of people believe that
vaccinations are not as effective as they are made to believe by health
organizations. Therefore, unless amended, the bill will remain to be perceived
as a breach of the law to some people.
Rebuttal
Despite the allegations made against the mandatory
vaccination law, provision of healthcare for the children should be the
priority. The health sector should always remain steadfast in ensuring quality
healthcare for the current generation and future generations so that America
can remain stable. It is the obligation of the federal government to ensure
there is no spread and transmission of communicable diseases into America from
any foreign state. Therefore, the introduction of the “Vaccinate all Children
Act 2015” should not be opposed whatsoever. The allegations that the bill
infringes on free exercise right is far-fetched because freedom to make a
choice does not encompass putting life at risk. Again, from a moral standpoint,
every human being has the mandate to protect life (Bell, 2015). Additionally,
freedom of being religious does not translate to liberty to expose a kid to
infectious disease. Vaccination is one way of protecting the lives of children
that are in danger of contacting the disastrous illnesses.
The claim that the bill ought to have considered the
philosophical exemptions is unfounded. Every person could resolve to forgo the
vaccination by the philosophical exemption. Nearly all parents would have
reasons for not taking part in the children's vaccination activities.
Therefore, mandatory vaccination would be the best remedy because there would
be no room for irrelevant excuses. Turning philosophical while on the verge of
health crises would mean exposing the children to the communicable disease (Bell,
2015).
In conclusion, the mandatory vaccination would very
efficient and safe for the children. The vaccine would ensure a healthy
population of the children, who are the most susceptible to communicable
disease. Therefore, there should be no religious or philosophical exemptions to
the vaccination since children’s health care matters most in shaping the future
of America.
References
Medina, J.
(2015). Bill Requiring Vaccination of Children Advances in California, but
Hurdles Remain. New York Times.
Bell, L. (2015). Big
U.S. Majority Favours Mandatory Vaccinations: Reuters/Ipsos Poll, Reuters.
