preview

Mill's Vaccination Case

Decent Essays

Vaccinations are a great success to public health. However, this is a case that deals with self-sufficiency in contrast to a whole population. I will be approaching this case by using John Mill’s theory. As a doctor, your main concern is the health of a child. When a child comes in extremely ill and the parents do not agree to vaccinating the child then you are kind of stuck in the middle because you would hate seeing the child suffer. In order to save a child’s life and other children around them parents should listen to doctors and have them vaccinated. If they refused, I would politely have them go to another doctor because it is something I would lose sleep over knowing that I can save a child, as well as many others, but the parents are not cooperating. As a doctor, we have special obligations to help people in need and protect the helpless ones who cannot protect themselves against a disease. Healthy people protect themselves by getting vaccinated, this is condoned by Mill’s theory. So doctors are authorized to interfere with an individual’s freedom and self-determination because they will prevent harm to other people. …show more content…

Why? Because children did not receive MMR vaccines. Doctors were baffled because they had to treat babies as well. Children under the age of one cannot get vaccinated. Doctors said that these babies would have not been sick if the older children around them were vaccinated. Guardians obviously have the choice whether they want to vaccinate their children or not. I don’t think it is ethically permissible for a guardian to refuse a vaccine, such as the MMR, for a child. Unless there is an extremely important religious aspect as to why vaccinations are not allowed. That ideology is still not right because these diseases are preventable and parents should look at the bigger picture and not stay stuck in the little bubble they are

Get Access