The issue of vaccination has attracted significant controversy and debates over the years. The situation arises because, since the 20th century, vaccines have played a critical role in the maintenance of public health. The two sides of the debate are commonly referred to as pro- and anti-vaxxers. The former is in support of the medical practice, while the latter contest against its effectiveness in preventing the outbreak of diseases. For individuals against the use of vaccines, the core issue centers on the side effects of inoculations on both physical and mental health. Additionally, anti-vaccination campaigners cite the need to guarantee religious and individual rights as provided for in the constitution as justification for their actions. This group assumes that, for the most part, a conspiracy exists between governments, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical firms. Contrarily, supports of vaccination initiatives argue that they have a beneficial impact on population health. For this group, a presumption exists that objective scientific evidence can back the positives outcomes of inoculation initiatives.
Given the significance of the issue on public health, it has become a primary subject among scholars and other professionals. One such person is Clyde Haberman, a journalist. In 2015, he authored an article in The New York Times whose title is, “A discredited vaccine study’s continuing impact on public health.” In the article, the author’s purpose was to deconstruct the myths that have fueled the campaigners by anti-vaxxers. He achieves this outcome by illustrating that their arguments are based on logical fallacies rather than objective evaluations. Essentially, he seeks to make the case on why society must embrace the notion of vaccinations. His goal was to provide an overview of the main reasons behind the claims of anti-vaxxers and to illustrate why they cannot be used in making objective decisions. Additionally, he also sought to provide evidence to support the benefits of vaccinations. In his argument, he employs both logic and emotional appeal. His target audience is the public, including both pro- and anti-vaccine advocates. He seeks to persuade the latter on the need to embrace the practice.
The main concern for proponents of the practice is that the failure to vaccinate may lead to a resurgence of diseases that had been eradicated previously from American society. He claims that a significant fall in the proportion of the population injected against certain infectious diseases may roll back the gains made in public health by reducing the existing herd immunity. Haberman (2015) makes the claim in the second paragraph of the article. Thus, he asserts that it is vital for individuals to shun myths relating to the dangers of the medical practice. Instead, they should support the initiatives.
The author offers insightful evidence to support the pro-vaccination initiative. Haberman (2015) uses the case of a measles outbreak that occurred in 2014. Public health officials thought that the viral disease had been eradicated in the country by the year 2000. However, in 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.) held that a total of 644 cases of the ailment had been reported across 27 states. The public agency held that California Disneyland was the epicenter of the outbreak. Crucially, no death was reported from the breakout. However, had the situation persisted, the outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality could have been severe. Haberman (2015) uses data from previous similar occurrences to model the possible consequences of the disease. He asserts that the death rate from the outburst of the illness often ranges from one to two persons for every 1000 individuals infected. Given the relatively high population in the country presently, such a pandemic could lead to a high number of deaths and other associated consequences.
Herd immunity is another notion that the author uses to illustrate his claims. This concept holds that if a significant portion of the population is vaccinated or contain natural protection against a disease, then it insulates those not inoculated from the communicable diseases. Haberman (2015) cites research illustrating that herd immunity can only be achieved where over 95% of the population has taken a vaccine. Thus, the acts of anti-vaxxers, if persistent, would lead to a significant reduction in the proportion of persons vaccinated; thus, reducing the overall herd immunity. In making his claims, Haberman employs logos. The appeal to logic is apparent, given that he presents objective evidence. Further, it is also possible to track the origin of the evidence. For instance, some of them can be traced to the C.D.C., a factor that increases the validity and verifiability of the assertions.
The evidence is likely to reinforce the views of proponents of the practice on the need for vaccinations. However, it is unlikely to change the perceptions of anti-vaccination campaigners. This situation occurs because the sources of data that Haberman uses, like the C.D.C., are at the center of the mistrust that the opponents harbor. According to Vidula (2010), those opposed to the medical practice have always expressed their distrust towards government institutions and academics on the subject. They assert that these groups of individuals work discreetly in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies with the aim of profiteering.
The major concern for opponents of the practice is that some parents believe that the vaccines lead to adverse side effects, including the occurrence of mental illnesses like autism. Haberman (2015) states that this claim has become prevalent because of the existence of logical fallacies. For example, instances where children have developed autism after inoculation have been reported. The author holds that such cases led to the illogical conclusion that a link exists between the shots and the mental ailment; yet, the cause of the outcome may be independent of the vaccines. Other concerns stem from the mistrust that this group has in existing institutions in government, media, medical, and pharmaceutical fields. This information is present in the third paragraph of the article. Haberman (2015) reiterates that the claim lacks scientific backing.
In supporting his claim against the opponents, Haberman cites the discredited evidence of Andrew Wakefield, a British doctor. Wakefield claimed that based on a study he conducted on twelve children, a link exists between the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (M.M.R.) shot and intestinal problems as well as autism. However, Haberman (2015) holds that numerous epidemiological studies countered the claims made by Wakefield. This situation led to Lancet, the journal that had published his paper retracting it. Further, the doctor lost his practicing license. Haberman (2015) also highlights a paradox held by anti-vaxxers. The group contends that they do not need vaccinations because herd immunity acts as an effective intervention. Nonetheless, the author maintains that herd immunity would not be successful in a community where individuals do not obtain the shots. This outcome arises because the proportion of the community’s population that is immunized would fall below the recommended levels of 95%; thus, defeating the purpose of adopting such a strategy. Haberman uses such logical inconsistences to illustrate the impracticability of the opponents’ hypotheses.
Nevertheless, Haberman (2015) is sympathetic to the claim that scholars, clinicians, government institutions, and pharmaceutical companies have teamed up for the sake of profiteering — a common assertion made by anti-vaccination campaigners. Notably, Haberman (2015) does not hold such views to be accurate; however, he contends that these stakeholders have failed in providing clear communication, a factor that has led to myths taking root. Haberman also highlights the fallacy of the group’s claim that most of the communicable diseases are no longer a threat; thus, no need for vaccinations exist. Yet, this outcome arises because of the very success of vaccines. Consequently, Haberman (2015) asserts that the views of anti-vaxxers are subjective, both from logical and scientific perspectives.
The evidence that Haberman offers to counter claims of the opponents of vaccines relies on pathos. His reliance on emotional appeal is evident when he fails to cite the epidemiological studies used to refute Wakefield’s hypothesis. However, for individuals that believe in vaccination practices, the evidence presented by Haberman is likely to strengthen their belief in the act despite its inclination towards emotional persuasion. Nonetheless, the evidence is unlikely to change the attitudes of anti-vaccination supporters. One of the assertions that this group is likely to make is that the strength of the evidence offered by Dr. Wakefield is no less powerful when compared to that of pro-vaccination scholars. Any attempts to discredit the doctor would only act as a point to the existence of a conspiracy, a belief held by anti-vaxxers.
References
Haberman, C. (2015). A discredited vaccine study’s continuing impact on public health. The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/us/a-discredited-vaccine-studys-continuing-impact-on-public-health.html
Vidula, M. (2010). Individual Rights vs. Public Health: The Vaccination Debate. http://web.mit.edu/angles/2010_Mahesh_Vidula.html