Sample Argumentative Essay Paper on “Mandatory vaccination: An unqualified defence”

Immunisation is efficient and at time inefficient. When taken from the perspective of ensuring increased public
health it becomes an efficient policy. Looking at it form a religious as well as a human right perspective, it is an
inefficient policy.
Exposition of the argument presented in the essay
The analysis conducted by Pierik (2018) was with an aim of assessing vulnerability of vaccination.
Consequently, guiding to the obligation of the government on the declining rates of vaccination. The main
argument of the writer was that vaccination should not be for parents to decide but the government should make
it mandatory (Pierik, 2018, p.385). This would be a counter to the declining rates of vaccination.
The author recognises that children are a part of the society and thus should not be left to suffer. In addition, the
government should ensure universal health and good immune. Vaccines are meant to ensure that all are safe
which leads the importance of community vaccination. The paper argues that vaccination should be mandatory
for infectious children disease especially those that could be taken care of in two years of an infant life. (Pierik,
2018, p.382).
Outbreaks like with measles are completely dangerous as it can kill and can also be spread very fast. In
addition, it could lead to exposure to other diseases as well as expose children co disabilities. Therefore,
vaccination should not be parent directed but a mandatory obligation (Pierik, 2018, p.382). Also vaccination
mandatory reaction is supported by the author on bases of avoiding risk of exposure. In addition, it is a
government objective to ensure that all persons are safe and free from infection thus have to ensure high
immunity through vaccination as a public health policy (Pierik, 2018, p.386).
The author concludes that due to paradoxes that may arise making vaccination efficient policy as well as
inefficient policy, it then becomes an unqualified mandatory vaccination against measles. The conclusion made
is right, this is as support by the author who argues that the two major objections to vaccinations could be taken
care of increasing the willingness of parent to participate in vaccination. The argument is support by the
government main agenda of ensuring public health as well as safety for all children (Pierik, 2018, p.395).
Critical evaluation of the view, explaining one potential objection to the view
In the vaccination argument, it is realised that the impulsive laws are not always efficient in dealing with health
issues. Anti-vaccination movement have questioned the need for community vaccination which a set of high
dangers posed to individuals than benefits presented. This has been wide spread through different social
platforms making a lot of parent’s perceptions on the need for vaccination change. Consequently, even in an
event of an outbreak, like the measles outbreak in year 2015, people were not vaccinated leading to a high rate
of outbreak.

Therefore, the mandatory vaccination goes against parent rights for religion and conscience (Pierik, 2018,
p.390). This is because they are not left to make the vaccination decision for their children. The children have
no decision making capacity leaving it to the parents from which their right is taken away (Pierik, 2018, p.385).
Vaccination is one way of parent being responsible as well as assuring their children a good life.
Own reaction to the fitness of the view in (a)
It had been recognised that vaccines are good and safe for people. Consequently leading to increased public
confidence on the need for vaccination. Public health related matter are realised by their ability to reach out to a
wide respondents. Making use of children vaccination, it is possible to overcome the parents who should be
educated as well as trained on the importance of vaccination. This will consequently, make vaccination a self-
driven process. Parent will see it as an opportunity for self-growth. Therefore, leading to a community
Therefore, the argument for mandatory immunisation wold be an effective way of ensuring that all are not
exposed to the hazards. However, the art does not need to be hammered on people. They should instead be
trained as well as educated on the importance of vaccination. The government could place campaign on the
vaccinations. In addition, the public should be assured of safety and thus the government would be tasked with
a need for heavy investment in R&D to qualify the vaccines being put forth for use. Research has advocated for
vaccination since its advantages outweigh the cons (Pierik, 2018, p.385).
Reaction in light with the objection in (b)
The government should try to balance between human rights and public wellness. It is religiously right that all
humans should be healthy so that they can be able to search for their daily bread. Sick persons due to
negligence and exposure to hazards is not a moral norm. Therefore, although the vaccination could be seen as a
policy that infringes the rights of people, it should be seen a self-driven task guided by rationality of beings.
Consequently, fail to interfere with parent rights over their children. In addition, the government should
intervene in cases of parent negligence for a good life, vaccination being one (Pierik, 2018, p.385).
Pierik, R. (2018). Mandatory vaccination: an unqualified defence. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35(2), 381-