One of the most controversial topics in the vaccines industry currently, is the argument involving vaccines for children. Whether it is regarding FDA regulation, vaccine requirements for public schools, or the overall safety of vaccines, the topic presents a heated, two-sided debate. So which side do you sit on, and why?
This week's pro/con debate
Proponents argue that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, and whooping cough, which once killed thousands of infants annually are now prevented by vaccination. They contend that anti-vaccination studies are often faulty, biased, and misleading.
Therefore, vaccination should be required for children. No individual should have the right to risk the health of the public solely for the purpose of satisfying their personal moral, philosophical, or religious views.
Opponents argue that children's immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that the possible side effects of vaccination, including seizures, paralysis, and death, are not worth the risk of safeguarding against non-life threatening illnesses.
Therefore, governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan.
Please comment below, telling us which side of the fence you sit on and why.