Introduction
The debate on vaccine mandates has become one of the most relevant topics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many argue that obligatory vaccination contradicts the human rights of personal freedom and the ability to make independent decisions about healthcare. In other words, the government should not be able to impose mandatory vaccines on people. However, the current paper selects an opposing view and claims that vaccination mandates can be immensely helpful in supporting public health and do not obstruct personal human rights. The current argumentative essay ultimately explains why obligatory vaccination is a beneficial and ethical policy that aligns with democratic principles.
Argumentation
The first argument regarding the benefits of vaccination mandates is their positive impact on public health. For the sake of the current work, it is more convenient to discuss obligatory healthcare in the context of COVID-19, but mandatory vaccines have been relevant for a long time. The United States, Australia, European countries, and many nations globally utilize school attendance vaccination to prevent the spread of viruses and diseases (Greyson et al. 524).
Moreover, the research transparently demonstrates this approach’s high effectiveness, which is why many countries adopt it despite the seeming obstruction of individual rights (Greyson et al. 534). Lastly, this obligatory vaccination of children does not seem to invoke heated debates about its ethical considerations, and most people acknowledge that it is just a preventative measure. It is still critical to carefully regulate this policy, but obligatory vaccines have proven effective in mitigating the spread of viruses and protecting public health.
The center of this discussion is protection from COVID-19 and the seeming obstruction of human rights. There is substantial evidence that vaccination mandates effectively protect public health and increase healthcare coverage (Mello et al. 537). In other words, they protect people from viruses and motivate people to care more about their health.
Professional clinicians describe the effectiveness of vaccines, “Their great value in preventing severe illness and death is clear <…> Mandates can play a role in promoting the uptake of these vaccines” (Mello et al. 537). This perspective is supported by many leading clinics globally, making it an indisputable fact. As a result, the only valid counterargument against vaccination mandates is about ethical considerations and their impact on how people perceive the government.
Hence, refuting the claim that vaccination mandates hinder human rights is critical to proving the essay’s thesis. It is true that even though vaccines are effective, it might be practical to change the approach if they feel threatened or if their personal freedoms are being obstructed. However, the current essay claims that obligatory vaccination does not contradict democratic principles.
When a person refuses to vaccinate, they endanger themselves and the people around them (Wilkenfeld and Johnson 29). It means that their behavior endangers other people’s personal rights and could even be compared to intentional harm in the case of COVID-19. While it is true that some people might feel that their rights are obstructed, vaccination mandates protect these individuals and their “unwilling victims of COVID-19 exposure” (Wilkenfeld and Johnson 32). Therefore, this approach is ethical and protects the rights of most people.
Lastly, many individuals believe that vaccination itself is more dangerous than COVID-19 and other types of diseases. This point of view primarily emerges from misinformation and has little academic support (Velasquez-Manoff para. 4). The problem is that controversial news creates more public outrage and money for the publishers.
That is why some journals and even some healthcare specialists, who got stripped of their medical licenses, continue to misinform communities about the effects of vaccines (Velasquez-Manoff para. 25). As a result, many people get confused about the actual impact of vaccines and are scared to inject medications that they do not fully trust. It is an understandable position, but it hurts public health and the acceptance of vaccination mandates, which have proven effective.
Conclusion
Vaccination mandates are effective policies for protecting public health and minimizing the risks of virus spread. The current essay has presented two arguments regarding the practicality of this approach for personal health protection and increasing the coverage of vaccines. At the same time, the paper has refuted two counterarguments about ethical considerations and misinformation about vaccines.
Namely, mandatory healthcare might obstruct personal rights to an extent, but it does protect the individuals and people around them. In this sense, it prevents the intentional harm people invoke when they refuse to vaccinate. These arguments transparently show that vaccination mandates are practical and ethical policies that can significantly improve public health.
Works Cited
Greyson, Devon, et al. “Impact of School Vaccination Mandates on Pediatric Vaccination Coverage: A Systematic Review.” Canadian Medical Association Open Access Journal, vol. 7, no. 3, 2019, pp. 524-536. Web.
Mello, Michelle, et al. “Effectiveness of Vaccination Mandates in Improving Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines in the USA.” The Lancet, vol. 400, 2022, pp. 535-538. Web.
Velasquez-Manoff, Moises. “The Anti-Vaccine Movement’s New Frontier.” The New York Time Magazine, 2022. Web.
Wilkenfeld, Daniel A., and Christa M. Johnson. “In Defense of Vaccine Mandates: An Argument from Consent Rights.” Public Health Ethics, vol. 15, no. 1, 2022, pp. 27-40. Web.