VaccinateAll Children Act 2015
VaccinateAll Children Act 2015
Provisionof quality healthcare remains to be among the primary goals of theUnited States’ federal government. Various policies have beenintroduced for the purpose of affordable, efficient, and qualityhealth for the American people. The “Vaccinate All Children” Actof 2015 is one of the policies that sought out the provision ofmedical care to all children in America through vaccination. Thepolicy would be significant in ensuring the prevention ofcommunicable diseases against children who stand a higher risk ofcontracting fatal infectious diseases due to their tender age andrelatively weak immune systems. Similarly, the Act would ensure thatall students in public schools acquire the mandatory vaccination andtherefore, it would be a requirement for students enrolling in publicschools to have received the treatment. Despite opposition fromvarious organs and individuals, the Vaccinate All Children Act is ofgreat significance to everyone in the United States since it curbsthe infection of deadly diseases among children and guarantees areduced mortality rate for the vulnerable.
Explanationof the Act
On1stMay 2015, Florida Congresswoman Ms. Frederica Wilson introduced theVaccinate all Children Act (Medina,2015).The bill required all students attending public schools to receive amandatory vaccination with a few exemptions. The exemptions require aletter from a state-certified physician giving medical reasons as towhy vaccination is harmful to the child. Moreover, children withallergies and weak immune systems resulting from pressing operationslike chemotherapy would also be exempted. The bill would revise thePublic Health Service Act of 1994 that gave the federal governmentauthority to quarantine individuals for the purpose of preventing theintroduction and spread of transmissible diseases from othercountries and into the United States (Medina,2015).Despite being a country that has an excellent reputation in almostall realms, there have been instances where some Americans havesuffered from diseases due to ignorance, philosophical thoughts andalso due to high cost of medications (Medina, 2015).
Theintroduction of the controversial bill was accompanied by highexpectations among some Americans as others felt the bill wentagainst their rights due to its obligatory nature. The Act would makesure that all students joining elementary and secondary publicschools have access to the vaccine. According to Bill, itsimplementation would be paramount because the vaccines were proven tobe efficient and safe for the Americans (Bell, 2015). During itsintroduction, the congresswoman asserted that childhood vaccinationswere paramount for healthy lives of children in America since itensured a protected future generation (Medina, 2015). The childrenwho would forego the exercise exposed themselves from the fatalcommunicable diseases and also put others at risk throughcontamination. Therefore, it would have been wise for parents whocared for the wellbeing of their children to comply with the billsince it served the purpose of ensuring a healthy life for theirdaughters and sons.
Argumentfor the Bill
Thefederal government has a responsibility of ensuring communicablediseases are not spread into the American population. Therefore, the“Vaccinate all Children Act” would be imperative in controllingtransmission of illness upon accidental introduction by foreignvisitors. From a public health perspective, the fact that thevaccination act was compulsory for the children does not justify thepublic to oppose the policy because the exercise poses no risk to thehealth condition of children (Bell, 2015). As the bill explicitlystates that the vaccines were proven to be efficient and safe,opposition to the exercise would only be political rivalry devoid ofrationality and assessment on the benefits that lie on having thechildren vaccination. The decent idea behind the Act is thepreservation of life, and therefore, opposition to the bill shouldtake a different side for instance, based on the criteria used toadminister the vaccinations and not the vaccination itself (Efthimios& Douglas, 2017). In the American population, not all Americansare capable of accessing quality medical check-ups for their familymembers due to economic statuses. Some of the vaccinations could beexpensive for a low-income earner to foot.
Asa government’s responsibility, administration of vaccines to schoolgoing children is the most feasible technique to guarantee a healthyyouthful population. When the exercise is left in the hands of thecivilians, there would be various assumptions for the invisibleinfections. For instance, others would argue that their children arehealthy because the family lineage has no record of contractingcontagious diseases (Medina, 2015). However, the Act would beindiscriminate to all children and therefore guarantee every child’simmunity. Additionally, due to different eating habits from diversesocieties across America, some families are more vulnerable tocontracting the diseases. Therefore, mandatory vaccinationlegislation would be well-suited for such groups in the communitiessince they possibly do not have adequate knowledge on the factorsthat could expose their children to the pronounced risk of diseases.For instance, in 2015, there were more than 100 cases of communicablediseases in California despite the federal government’s previousefforts to eliminate the maladies (Medina, 2015).
Theonly way through which the government can show affection to thehealth and safety of children is through vaccination. The exercisemust be compulsory since in the recent past, America has received asignificant number of immigrants. The immigrants could be diseasescarrier. According to previous studies, there has been proof thatpublic elementary and secondary schools have recorded the highestnumber of communicable diseases infections (Bell, 2015). If thefederal government leaves anything to chance with such a record, itwould be a disaster. Therefore, the vaccination process should not besubject to exemption over insignificant justifications fromopponents. As the nature of politics is, there has to be opposition.However the government has the power to enact critical policies thatthreaten the existence and strength of the American people regardlessof the people’s uproar (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). Therefore,the Act would mean a stronger America, devoid of health challengesand risks.
Additionally,the enactment of the statute would translate to reduced expenditurein the treatment of the serious diseases. It is always wise toprevent than to cure. Therefore, the bill was futuristic becausefamilies without medical covers would have reduced cases ofoverspending in treatment (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). Notably, avaccinated child would rarely visit the hospital for diagnosis andtreatment of communicable diseases. Also, a vaccine is not worthtaking the risk of a child’s life. Furthermore, the authority ofthe federal government to quarantine may seem to be divisive from asocial perspective. For instance, a child whose friend is isolatedfor being diagnosed with communicable diseases may live with the fearto associate with the friend again. Therefore, the bill as a healthpolicy would provide for an American society that does not incur hugecost of disease treatment upon infection and a young generation thatdoes not suffer from the separation between the infected and healthy.
Theintroduction of the act elicited mixed reactions across America. Oneof the arguments among the opponents is that the law was against thefree exercise right (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). From a legalperspective, the claim against the act could be accurate, a move thatcould nullify the enactment of the “Vaccinate all Children Act.”The free exercise clause prevents the Congress from enactinglegislation that curtails the people’s freedom of worship andexercise of religion (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). In thiscontext, opponents of the “Vaccinate all Children” felt that thebill infringed on their social right, a move that is against theconstitution. The bill stated that it would put no consideration orexemptions for the vaccination on the religious and philosophicalbasis (Medina, 2015). Therefore, it means that every child in Americaat the opportune age of receiving the injection is obliged to receivethe vaccine. The American population is multifaceted in the realm ofreligious conviction. There are those who are convinced that oneshould not seek medication on earth because God is the one who givesand takes away life. Such doctrinal beliefs would not accommodateanything equivalent to vaccination for all children. Additionally,the bill would not exempt anyone from undertaking the vaccine byphilosophical model. In the constitution, every person has thefreedom of thought and one’s thought may be against theadministration of the vaccine to the child. Therefore, from a broadperspective, mandatory vaccination would mean infringement on thepeople’s right and freedom (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017).
Thepolicy of mandatory vaccine before entering elementary and secondaryschool could also yield a high number of home-schooling students. Theparents who feel the enactment of the bill as a violation of theirrights may decide to have their children remain at home and learnfrom there. The move to have children to study from home is notcommendable because not all parents would have the ability to provideall necessities for learning and development of the children.Additionally, the children who learn from home lack crucial socialskills. The social life of making friends and interacting withdifferent people from all walks of life is always not part ofhome-schooling. In this context, the children would lack the skillsin the job market whereby, they may find it difficult to associatewith workmates. Furthermore, some parents believe that by not havingthe vaccination and contacting the disease, the child developsimmunity against the illness (Efthimios & Douglas, 2017). Suchgroups of people believe that vaccinations are not as effective asthey are made to believe by health organizations. Therefore, unlessamended, the bill will remain to be perceived as a breach of the lawto some people.
Despitethe allegations made against the mandatory vaccination law, provisionof healthcare for the children should be the priority. The healthsector should always remain steadfast in ensuring quality healthcarefor the current generation and future generations so that America canremain stable. It is the obligation of the federal government toensure there is no spread and transmission of communicable diseasesinto America from any foreign state. Therefore, the introduction ofthe “Vaccinate all Children Act 2015” should not be opposedwhatsoever. The allegations that the bill infringes on free exerciseright is far-fetched because freedom to make a choice does notencompass putting life at risk. Again, from a moral standpoint, everyhuman being has the mandate to protect life (Bell, 2015).Additionally, freedom of being religious does not translate toliberty to expose a kid to infectious disease. Vaccination is one wayof protecting the lives of children that are in danger of contactingthe disastrous illnesses.
Theclaim that the bill ought to have considered the philosophicalexemptions is unfounded. Every person could resolve to forgo thevaccination by the philosophical exemption. Nearly all parents wouldhave reasons for not taking part in the children`s vaccinationactivities. Therefore, mandatory vaccination would be the best remedybecause there would be no room for irrelevant excuses. Turningphilosophical while on the verge of health crises would mean exposingthe children to the communicable disease (Bell, 2015).
Inconclusion, the mandatory vaccination would very efficient and safefor the children. The vaccine would ensure a healthy population ofthe children, who are the most susceptible to communicable disease.Therefore, there should be no religious or philosophical exemptionsto the vaccination since children’s health care matters most inshaping the future of America.
Medina,J. (2015). Bill Requiring Vaccination of Children Advances inCalifornia, but Hurdles Remain. NewYork Times.
Bell,L. (2015). BigU.S. Majority Favours Mandatory Vaccinations:Reuters/IpsosPoll,Reuters.
Efthimios,P. & Douglas, J. (2017). Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccinesand Medical Neglect Laws.AmericanJournal of Public Health,Vol.107p68-71.