Ethics Of Optional Infant Vaccinations

Essay by jakelittle92High School, 11th gradeA+, February 2010

download word file, 4 pages 4.3

Downloaded 21 times

States, such as Texas, who give legal guardians the option of not vaccinating their children during the newborn-to-two-year-old period, because of the recent scare of supposed "links" between said vaccinations and autism, are unnecessarily putting not only themselves and their children, but the entire country at risk of a disease outbreak that can otherwise be avoided altogether.

In the last decade or so, there has been a large movement of concerned parents, led by such celebrities as Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that have pushed for states to give parents the choice on whether or not to have their child vaccinated as an infant. Their main argument is that 'studies have shown that there is indeed a link between these (once) standard infant vaccinations and autism'. This argument is backed by the pseudo-logic that the vaccines, which contain a neurotoxin, called thimerosal, are essentially poison to an infant's body.

On the surface level, one might agree, siding with caution and saying that neurotoxins can't help an infant's body develop correctly. This is why people like McCarthy and Carrey have such a cult following. There are actual statistics out that show links between vaccines and autism, yes. But there is no credible study available that shows that infant vaccinations are the sole cause, or even an actual cause, of autism. In an article in "WIRED Magazine", Paul Offit, a co-inventor of a vaccine that is used on today's infants, which has saved tens of thousands of lives since it has been put to use, proves those following McCarthy dead wrong. In a study that Offit, along with the CDC, conducted, it was found that with the amount of thimerosal in each vaccination, a newborn baby could safely receive 100,000 doses without any harm done to their...