Sydney Moody
Dr.
Stephanie Brown
ENG 306
6 April
2016
The United States Vaccine Debate
Vaccinations are artificial, immunological
defense mechanisms used to defeat viruses that pose serious threats to the
human immune system. Fortunately, there are successful vaccines for many
deleterious viruses and diseases including influenza, hepatitis B, measles,
mumps, rubella, and the varicella virus (Bezio et al., 51). Despite their
success, vaccines and those who advocate for their use have recently come under
extreme scrutiny, arising in what is now commonly known as the Vaccine Debate.
To foster a complete understanding of the
circumstances leading up to this controversy, this essay will begin with an
introduction to the history of vaccines from the late 1700s leading up to the
ongoing anti-vaccination movement. This will lead into a thorough discussion of
the rhetoric used by pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine protestors in response to California’s
new mandatory vaccination law, Senate Bill 277. The rhetoric used by
individuals on both sides of the protest often incorporates aspects of the
American identity in their propaganda to incite American citizens to join their
movement. Finally, examples of rhetorical artifacts used in the protests will be
analyzed in relation to the American identity and the rhetorical strategies,
ethos, pathos, and logos to point out the compelling aspects of both arguments.
The History of Vaccines
Vaccines became essential to survival with
the impact of smallpox in Europe in the 1700s (Riedel). Smallpox is a deadly
disease caused by the Variola virus that is characterized by skin rashes and
fever (WebMD). Fortunately, those who witnessed the devastation of the disease in
Europe came to realize that “survivors of smallpox became immune to the
disease,” which eventually led to the practice of inoculation, the predecessor
of vaccinations (Riedel). Inoculation is the unsettling practice of injecting
“fresh matter taken from a ripe pustule of some person who suffered from
smallpox” (Riedel) into the skin of a healthy individual. This preventative
measure led to the development of the first smallpox vaccine by Edward Jenner
in 1796 (Riedel). The idea behind vaccination is to prevent a disease or
illness from occurring by intentionally introducing “dead or weakened forms of
infectious microbes” (Williams, 8) into the body of a relatively healthy
individual promoting the development of immunity (Williams, 8).
The practice of vaccination became widely successful in the early 1800s
(Riedel), and vaccines eventually led to the abolishment of smallpox and highly
reduced rates of other diseases “such as diphtheria, whooping cough, and
tetanus” (Williams, 8). Vaccinations may have even gone so far as to influence
the outcome of the Revolutionary War in the United States, with both sides of
the war protecting their troops with vaccines (Jana). There is no doubt that
the scope of survival from infectious diseases was heavily influenced by the
faithful use of vaccinations. Global history has proven that previously deadly
diseases such as smallpox have been completely overcome by the use of vaccines
(Williams, 8). However, in recent years, the American public has shown
fluctuations in their faith in vaccines, inspiring individuals to rally both
against and in favor of immunizations.
The polarizing nature of the vaccine debate is most noticeable when the public
responds to mandatory vaccination laws. In the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Court ruled
that “the board of health of a city or town” may “require and enforce the
vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof” in the interest
of “public health or safety” (Justia). The defendant, Jacobson, was ruled
against by the Court after declining to be vaccinated and was forced to pay a
five dollar fine (Justia). The Court did implement exceptions, but the results
of this case have continued to cause controversy in cities throughout the
United States. On one side of the debate we see judicious lawmakers hoping to
protect the majority, and on the other side concerned individuals are speaking
out for personal freedoms.
Continuing such controversy, the state of California enacted Senate Bill 277 in
February of 2015, making interesting changes to an existing vaccination law.
The purpose of the bill was to “eliminate the exemption from immunization based
on personal beliefs” (California Senate, 2015). The law does not legally
require vaccinations, but it does require that all children be immunized before
enrolling in daycare, public, or private schools in the state of California. As
a result, “…hundreds of parents have attended public hearings to protest the
measure, arguing that the state should not interfere with their decisions about
what medical treatment to provide their children” (McGreevy).
The new law has also created dispute
amongst proponents of the bill and religious institutions, such as the Nation
of Islam (McGreevy). Personal belief exemptions previously allowed individuals
to refuse vaccinations due to religious conflicts of interest (NCSL). Senate
Bill 277 removes these exemptions and would force the hands of many anti-vaccine
parents to immunize their children so they can attend school in California.
Laws such as Senate Bill 277 stir up emotions on behalf of two types of
protestors: those who oppose the bill because it violates their personal
beliefs and those who oppose the bill because they disapprove of vaccines
altogether. The latter, often referred to as “anti-vaxxers” (Khazan), have
developed an entire movement in opposition to mandatory vaccinations. This anti-vaccination
movement, is a “rhetorical attempt…to arouse public opinion to the destruction
or rejection…” (Griffin, 11) of vaccinations. Some of the credit for this
movement can be given to former physician and current film director, Andrew
Wakefield who published a paper in 1998 that provided false evidence of a
correlation between autism and the MMR vaccine (Lipkin). Although the paper was
discredited, the association between the disorder and the vaccine lingers
eighteen years later (Lipkin).
The goal of the anti-vaccination movement is to maintain the right to deny
mandatory vaccinations based on personal beliefs as well as to inform those who
currently consent to vaccinations about the associated dangers. Their
collective protest has developed from “a period of inception” to “a period of
rhetorical crisis” (Griffin, 10). During the former period, Andrew Wakefield
was spreading the message of the movement throughout the United Kingdom and the
United States, causing panic amongst the parents of vaccinated children. The
movement has since breached “rhetorical crisis” (Griffin, 10) because an
unyielding conflict has arose between those who support the anti-vaccination movement
and those who support vaccinations. Despite overwhelming evidence and support
from the scientific community justifying the efficacy of vaccines (Williams, 9),
rumors about the adverse effects of vaccines continue to circulate. The protest
will only reach what Leland Griffin calls, “a period of consummation” when the
protestors accept defeat or vaccine supporters concede to the protestor's
wishes.
In contrast, there are many individuals and organizations that continue to
advocate for the use of vaccinations despite backlash from angry parents and
disgruntled religious institutions. To their dismay, the anti-vaccination
movement has disseminated a plethora of misinformation to the American public.
The individuals responsible for correcting this misinformation include,
“…public health officials, the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
Food and Drug Administration and child health advocates…” (Williams, 11).
The divide between pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine
movements has created significant conflict amongst parents of school-aged
children. This conflict is fueled by mandatory vaccination laws, which imply
the state government’s explicit support of vaccinations. In the past, personal
belief exemptions provided loopholes for parents who wished not to vaccinate
their children. In fact, “up to 60 to 70 percent of parents,” in the Los
Angeles area alone, used these exemptions to avoid immunizations for various
personal reasons. Although many of these exemptions were valid, they defeated
the purpose of vaccines, which are most effective when used in abundance. This
is known as herd immunity, which suggests that vaccines need to be used by “92
percent or more of a population” (Khazan) to be truly successful. When applied,
herd immunity protects even the unvaccinated “such as infants, pregnant women, or
immunocompromised individuals” (vaccines.gov). Those children in Los Angeles
schools who do become infected with preventable diseases will put other
children at risk “by increasing their exposure” (Metcalf et al.). Therefore, as
the anti-vaccination movement continues to grow, protection from infectious
diseases through vaccination becomes less and less effective. Consequently, the
outcome of this debate will have a profound impact on the spread of
communicable diseases and the health of American citizens.
Rhetoric of the Vaccine Controversy
The anti-vaccination movement emerged amidst newfound information about the side
effects of vaccines. It is widely known that vaccinations may cause “…soreness
at the injection site, fever, aches, and fatigue” (Williams, 8). However,
“Severe adverse effects, such as allergic reactions, convulsions, shock, and
death are also possible but are reported to be statistically rare” (Williams,
8). These risks, on top of Andrew Wakefield’s false evidence of an association
between autism and the MMR vaccine, may perplex concerned parents hoping to
make the right decision for their child. With extensive evidence fueling the
support of vaccinations as well as the elaborate warnings by anti-vaccination
protestors, the decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate can be difficult
amidst all the contradictory guidance. However, as polarizing as this issue is,
parents hoping to make the right choice for their children can find solace with
their American values being represented on either side of the controversy.
Those who are anti-vaccine represent the
right to have freedom over one’s body, which would seem an obvious right in
America where personal freedom is so profoundly advertised. In many circumstances,
personal beliefs are respected in the United States. For example, when a
religious tradition calls for circumcision, or a Jehovah’s Witness patient
denies a life-saving blood transfusion, we allow it. Both of these examples
represent medically controversial issues in which Americans have ruled in favor
of the individual’s rights whether they are asking for or refusing a particular
treatment or procedure. However, other controversial medical procedures, such
as abortions and now vaccines, have limitations that restrict personal freedom
over one’s own body. In the United States, protesting against limitations is
not uncommon. In fact, some may argue that protesting against limitations of
personal freedoms is a crucial part of the American identity.
This conversation on protesting for personal
freedoms prompts a discussion on the implications of mandatory vaccination laws
on religious freedom in the United States. As previously discussed, the Nation
of Islam has come forward objecting to the dismantling of personal belief
exemptions. The United States is famously known as a melting pot of religiously
diverse cultures that has fostered vast religious freedom. Some religions
advocate for immunizations, while others, such as the Nation of Islam, oppose
vaccination within their religious communities. However, it seems that the
right to deny vaccinations based on religious beliefs has already been
implicitly ruled on in the United States. In the 1994 Supreme Court Case Prince v. Massachusetts, the Court
concluded, “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to
expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill
health or death” (Cornell University Law School). We can conclude, therefore,
that the American identity encompasses religious freedom, but only to the
extent that American citizens are protected from the possible medical
ramifications of various religious beliefs.
It is also an American characteristic to intervene in medical affairs for the
greater good, as was displayed in 2014 with America’s involvement in the
African Ebola crisis. By September of 2014, the United States had donated “more
than $100 million” (Kaplan) to the cause on top of caring for four Ebola
patients in U.S. hospitals (Kaplan). In the case of vaccines, the more
individuals who are vaccinated, the more protected we are as a country. With
this information in mind, we know that this is more than an individual
issue. It is a national issue of immunological safety that is worth discussing
as a country. Until this discussion leads to a more agreeable solution, mandatory
vaccination laws will continue to be an example of United States intervening on
behalf of the greater good.
With the breadth of the vaccine
controversy expanding and the greater good of American citizens at stake, many
intellectuals have taken it upon themselves to convince the public and parents
of young children of the efficacy of vaccines through their work. In the first
chapter of the book Vaccinations, Gretchen Flanders included the
following “four-way stop sign” metaphor by Dr. Bruce Gellin, “‘A person who
decides to ignore the stop sign knows he has less risk of an accident if others
obey it. However, if two drivers make a similar decision, assuming that the
other will stop, the outcome becomes much more risky for everyone in the
intersection.’” (Flanders, 14). As more and more people make the decision to
refuse vaccination, the risk for developing an infectious disease increases.
Michelle Meadows, noted in her essay Vaccines Are Safe and Effective,
“…even immunized individuals can be at risk because no vaccine is ever 100
percent effective for everyone” (Meadows, 19).
Despite the many publications verifying the safety of vaccines, the anti-vaccination
movement roars on, continuing to contribute to Senate Bill 277 protests in
California. On May 16, 2015, protestors rallied at the doorstep of
an event for the Democratic Party in Anaheim criticizing governor Jerry Brown
for the bill’s passing (Jamison). Later that year, a Santa Monica ABC news
station reported on an anti-vaccination protest labeled the Health Freedom
Rally. Reporter Denise Dador claimed that “hundreds of parents and activists”
were present at the event, as was Andrew Wakefield, an infamous promoter of the
movement (Dador). The press and media coverage of these protests has helped
spread anti-vaccine propaganda nationwide. With personal testimonies from
parents establishing pathos and educated medical professionals providing a
source ethos, the coercive anti-vaccine movement continues to gain followers.
The
images of these protests on the news amplify the movement’s following key terms
and phrases used to alarm the public: informed consent, autism, and my child,
my choice. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
informed consent is a participant’s agreement to participant in research once
informed of all possible risks (hhs.gov). By using this phrase, protestors are
eliciting their right to know all possible side effects of vaccines as well as
their right to refuse them.
The second key term used in anti-vaccination protests is autism. Despite
evidence disproving the association between autism and vaccination, protestors
continue to use this word as a rhetorical strategy. By putting the word
“autism” on their posters, protestors use pathos, persuasion through emotion,
to persuade other parents to avoid vaccines. Jenny McCarthy, a celebrity
representative of the anti-vaccination movement, has used this word
continuously to criticize vaccinations. As she personally has a child with
autism, McCarthy is essential to the effective use of pathos in this movement
(Coombes).
Finally, the phrase “my child, my choice” is seen all over anti-vaccine
posters. This phrase suggests that the new law revokes a parent’s choice to not
vaccinate their children. In actuality, parents still have the right to refuse
to vaccinate their children. The penalty of this choice, however, is that their
child will no longer be able to attend daycare, public, or private school
facilities (SB 277). This penalty may put many parents in a situation where
vaccination is now a financial dilemma rather than a healthcare dilemma.
A 2005 study by Allison Kennedy, Cedric
Brown, and Deborah A. Gust, found that “parents who reported lower household
income were more likely to be opposed to compulsory vaccination…” (Kennedy, et
al.). Therefore, on top of the medical outcomes of the vaccine controversy,
there are significant economic outcomes as well. According to the study, “parents
with lower household incomes are more likely to experience barriers, such as
transportation or access to health care services” (Kennedy et al.). These
results present interesting questions to those in favor of vaccinations. First
of all, are vaccines easy enough to receive? If parents cannot physically get
their children to a vaccination location, we cannot expect their children to be
vaccinated. Second, we must ask if vaccines pose significant financial costs to
less wealthy American families. Will these mandatory vaccines be provided free
of cost? With the passing of Senate Bill 277 in California, questions like this
need to be thoroughly investigated because the debate now clearly concerns more
than just anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine arguments. There is a substantial
economic perspective that still needs to be addressed.
Unfortunately, the authors of the bill
failed to use specific language regarding how California citizens will access
these mandatory vaccines. The bill simply states that California school
districts will have the ability to “use funds, property, and personnel of the
district” to help immunize school children (SB 277). Therefore, it is not
legally required for the district to financially sponsor the immunization of
California school children, and the costs may indeed fall to their parents.
The financial and medical concerns of worried parents feed into the success of
the anti-vaccination movement. The movement’s rhetorical goal is to use these
concerns to affect a change in the national opinion on vaccines through
celebrity endorsements and by pulling on heartstrings. There is no doubt that
the use of ethos and pathos within the anti-vaccination movement has benefited
their argument. With celebrities like Jenny McCarthy speaking at protests and
rallies, the movement’s protests attract bigger crowds and seem more
substantial in news reports. The existing political and legislative pursuits
are deeply connected to the movement’s rhetorical goal. As previously
discussed, the protestors in this movement seek to repeal mandatory vaccination
laws, such as Senate Bill 277, to ensure that personal belief exemptions remain
legal loopholes available to refuse vaccinations. More broadly speaking, these
protestors hope to create political change by limiting the government’s control
over vaccines and increasing medical autonomy.
The individuals involved in the anti-vaccination movement speak on behalf of identities
they feel connected to, including low-income families with limited medical
access, concerned parents, and American patriots fighting to preserve
individual liberties. This last identity, the American identity, is heavily
represented on both sides of the debate in the images, slogans, and testimonies
of vaccine activists and protestors.
Protest
Artifacts from the Vaccine Debate
The Anti-vaccination movement may have
gained its traction in the United States because the core of the protest
encompasses many attractive components of the American identity. The protests
in California concerning the recent passing of Senate Bill 277 elicited the
creation of new slogans in support of the movement. The most coercive of which
is the slogan “If there is a risk, there must be a choice.” This slogan has no
clear author, but rings with American patriotism. Those who use this slogan are
referring to the proposed risks involved with vaccinations, especially in
children. This slogan is credible amongst American citizens, because in most
risky circumstances, we are promised a choice. When it comes to smoking
cigarettes or drinking alcohol, for example, adult Americans are given the
choice not to engage in these risky behaviors. Anti-vaccination protestors
advocate for this same liberty to refuse vaccines that they believe come with
unjustified risks. Those who profess this slogan are demanding that government
officials intervene on behalf of concerned citizens who refuse to take part in
what they believe to be a risky endeavor.
When a law such as Senate Bill 277 creates
this much public outcry, people tend to approach government officials pleading
for an appeal. California resident, Laura Hayes, is one such individual. In an
open letter to California state senator, Ted Gaines, Laura Hayes wrote:
“SB
277 removes all non-medical exemptions for state-mandated vaccines. One need
only back it up one step further to see that mandates in and of themselves are
not in alignment with the U.S. Constitution, nor with the international code of
ethics found in The Nuremberg Code, nor with the ethical practice of medicine
which requires prior, voluntary, and informed consent.”
The reference to the United States
Constitution, a document that upholds many fundamental American values,
represents a powerful use of ethos in her argument. To this day, American
citizens regard the document with profound reverence. More than two hundred
years after the creation of the Constitution, it means something to defend the
rights that it promised. By referencing the Constitution, Hayes directly
questions the legitimacy of Senate Bill 277.
Also in Hayes’ statement, we see a key
phrase of the anti-vaccination movement previously discussed, “informed consent” (Hayes). As a society, we
place a great deal of trust in physicians and organizations like the Center for
Disease Control (CDC) to make knowledgeable decisions about the healthcare that
is made available to us. However, Hayes is claiming that a patient’s consent is
just as vital to any medical procedure as it is when administering vaccines.
She does so by directly referencing the Nuremberg Code, which states,
“voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” to be involved
in medical experiments (hhs.gov). Medical experimentation often has a negative
association, and Hayes is tying that negative association to vaccinations.
Hayes intentionally alluded to the
Nuremberg Code and the U.S. Constitution to provide a source of ethos in her
declaration against mandatory vaccination laws. Similarly, anti-vaccination
campaigns use ideas fundamental to the idea of being American to market their
negativity about vaccines.
Image credit:
parentsrightscalifornia.weebly.com
The image shown above was published on the
website for the California Coalition for Vaccine Choice. This artifact
immediately directs reader’s attention to a sacred symbol of American patriots,
the American flag. The flag itself is emblematic of American triumph and
creates strong emotions. It was raised after the terrorist attack on September
11, 2001. It is flown outside the United States Capitol building and throughout
our nation’s capitol. It distinguishes American citizens from athletes from
around the world during the Olympics. The background chosen in the image above
is an example of pathos, because the American flag has incredible sentimental
value in this country.
Additionally, this image uses a word that
is quintessential to the American identity –“freedom.” It is worth noting here
that although freedom is abundant in this country, it is not absolute
throughout the world. It is a privilege that American citizens honor by paying
respects to the American soldiers and the American flag. Lee Greenwood captures
this spirit in the following lyrics of his song God Bless the USA: “I’m proud
to be an American, where at least I know I’m free. And I won’t forget the men
who died, who gave that right to me” (scoutsongs.com).
Finally, this image uses the word
“mandatory.” This word was specifically chosen to use the language of Senate
Bill 277 against mandatory vaccine advocates (leginfo.ca.gov). The image reads,
“Freedom of choice should be mandatory.” The wording of this image promotes the
idea that instead of mandating vaccinations, the state of California should
mandate that every citizen be given a choice about whether or not to utilize
immunizations. The language of this slogan is not necessarily catchy or easy to
chant during a protest, which limits its credibility in the movement. Additionally,
one must recognize the language of the Senate Bill to truly comprehend the
message of the slogan. However, for those who are familiar with the senate
bill, the most compelling aspect of this image is that the ad does not need to
use the word “vaccination” to capture the anti-vaccination movement. There is
no mention of vaccinations because it has been figuratively ripped from its
association with the word “mandatory,” and replaced with “freedom of choice.”
On the other half of the Vaccine Debate,
pro-vaccine activists have utilized their own protest artifacts to foster faith
in science and vaccines. A member of UNICEF, Anthony Lake, captured an
important piece of the pro-vaccine movement in the following statement of a
keynote speech from 2011: “Every child has a fundamental
right to survive, to thrive and to grow. It should enrage us all that something
as relatively inexpensive, easy to deliver and effective as routine vaccination
is still not reaching the places where it can do the most good, and save the
most children” (Lake).
In the Preamble of the Constitution, the
government promises to “promote the general Welfare” (archives.gov), and Lake’s
statement prompts the international community to do the same. The various
diseases that vaccines can prevent are “…a major risk to the health and welfare
of human populations…” (Sun et al., 114), so it makes sense to promote the use
of vaccines. The vaccinations for several common diseases have prevented
“around six million annual deaths globally” (Sun et al., 14). In light of this
worrisome statistic, it is clear why Anthony Lake would advocate for “routine
vaccination” (Lake).
The language of this segment of his speech
vividly evokes pathos because he references the lives of young, vulnerable
children. When a child’s life is implicated by our decisions, people tend to
listen. Additionally, Lake defends these “relatively inexpensive” (Lake) vaccines
as safe methods of preventing diseases. This introduces a hint of logos into
his argument because he relies upon the factual financial and medical data
regarding vaccines to support his pro-vaccine stance in the debate. He alludes
to illogical reasons why vaccinations have not been used to their full
potential.
Although Anthony Lake’s position at UNICEF
certainly heightened his credibility as a spokesperson for vaccines, parents of
children who had adverse affects to vaccinations provide the most ethos to the
pro-vaccine movement. For example, Emily West, a mother whose son had adverse
affects after being vaccinated, proclaimed her pro-vaccination stance in a CNN
interview with Jareen Imam: “‘At least try to vaccinate…I have tried, and I did
it because it is part of my civic duty.’” (qtd. Imam).
Emily West’s use of the phrase “civic duty”
is a compelling use of pathos because American citizens have been taught not to
take civic duties lightly. By elevating the practice of vaccination to the same
level as “…obeying the laws of the country, paying taxes levied by the
government, or serving on a jury…” (Liverpool), we assume that American
citizens will comply with the best of their ability. Laws, taxes, and juries
are created in the interest of the society as a whole. Similarly, vaccines are
used in the interest of not only those who are vaccinated, but also those who
cannot be vaccinated due to other health concerns.
Mandatory vaccination laws, such as Senate
Bill 277, create “a protective effect called herd immunity that interrupts the
spread of the virus to vulnerable people” (Hensley). Carl Krawitt, another
concerned parent whose child cannot be immunized, is also in favor of
vaccinations (Aliferis). His son, Rhett, suffered from leukemia at an early age
and now “depends on everyone around him for protection” (Aliferis). With
individuals like Krawitt and West advocating for their child’s lives and
vaccinations simultaneously, it is easy to see how pathos can be incorporated
into the rhetoric of both sides of the controversy.
The issue surrounding the vaccination
debate is that people on both sides are interested in advocating for a worthy
cause, child safety. Although the evidence overwhelmingly supports
vaccinations, the United States is a democracy and people have the right to
openly protest against them (Jana et al.). The Anti-Vaccination movement has
managed to utilize both ethos and pathos in their campaign to repeal mandatory
vaccination laws. Backed by Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield, the movement
has captured our attention by purporting an association between vaccines and
autism as well as various other conspiracies. In contrast, those who continue to advocate
for vaccines have science and factual data in their favor, with many
physicians, child cancer survivors, and statistics in support of vaccines.
Although injecting oneself with a potentially
hazardous virus does not seem intuitively beneficial, the almost certain
guarantee of longstanding immunity makes vaccines worth the risk. The
complicated history of vaccinations has shown us that “public fear of disease
is often replaced by fear of preventative intervention as soon as the disease
itself begins to fade from collective memory” (Jana et al.). This phenomenon
has created a plague of conflicting opinions in this country that, if allowed
to continue, may foster the development of actual plagues.
Senate Bill 277 was the California state
government’s attempt to quell this immunization conflict, but has so far been
counterproductive. While students in California will be required to get
vaccinated this year, anti-vaccine parents continue to object to the law and
the anti-vaccination movement grows stronger. The protests through this
movement have been highly legible to the public, which has kept American citizens
aware of the debate and has encouraged them to take a stance. While many
Americans choose an anti-vaccine stance, it seems that the California state
government, a famously liberal state, has ruled in favor of government
regulation of vaccines. The protest is still firmly rooted in a period of
“rhetorical crisis” (Griffin, 11), so it is difficult to determine if
anti-vaccination protests will prove successful. At this point, medical
evidence and laws like Senate Bill 277 suggest that the protest will, in the
end, be a futile attempt to delegitimize vaccines.
Despite the limited legal implications of the
anti-vaccination movement, this polarizing issue continues to draw public
attention. Last year in a GOP debate, current Republican presidential candidate
Donald Trump re-ignited the discussion on autism and vaccines and took a
definitively anti-vaccine stance (Miller). If Donald Trump is elected this
November, the anti-vaccination movement may see some success after all.
More recently, the anti-vaccination
movement has garnered the spotlight through the release of Andrew Wakefield’s
new documentary “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.” The film was scheduled
to debut at the Tribeca Film Festival this month, but was removed due to the
perceived negative message of the film (Lipkin). The existence of this film
alone, however, is enough to concern pro-vaccine activists because it is a sign
that the anti-vaccination movement continues on.
Unfortunately, Andrew Wakefield and other
members of the movement are within their legal rights to protest vaccines
through artifacts like this documentary, and we can expect these protests to
continue in the future. In order to combat the dispersal of further
anti-vaccine propaganda, pro-vaccine advocates must continue to advocate for
legal protection. Until the country can come to a consensus on vaccines, it is
likely that this intensely debated issue will continue to cause conflict in the
United States.
Works Cited
Aliferis, Lisa. “To Protect His Son, A
Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children.” npr.org. 27 January 2015. Web. 14 April 2016.
“California
Senate Bill 277.” leginfo.ca.gov. 19
February 2015. Web. 5 April 2016.
“Community
Immunity (“Herd Immunity”).” vaccines.gov.
3 March 2016. Web. 23 April 2016.
Constitution
Quotes. brainyquote.com. Web. 14
April 2016.
Coombes, Rebecca. "VACCINE DISPUTES." BMJ: Britsih Medical Journal 338.7710
(2009): 1528-1531. Web. 04 April 2016.
Dador, Denise. “Hundreds Protest California Vaccine Bill In
Santa Monica.” abc7.com. 03 July 2015. Web. 07 April 2016.
Flanders, Gretchen. “Vaccinations Under Scrutiny: An
Overview.” Vaccinations. Ed. Mary E. Williams. Farmington Hills:
Greenhaven Press, 2003. pgs. 12-17. Print. 07 April 2016.
“Frequently Asked Questions About Human
Research.” HHS.gov. Web. 07 April 2016.
Greenwood, Lee. “God Bless The USA.” scoutsongs.com. Web. 14 April 2016.
Griffin, Leland M. “The Rhetoric of Historical Movements.”
Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest. By Chlares E. Morris III and
Stephen H. Brown. 3rd ed. 183-203. Desire 2 Learn. Web. 07 April
2016.
Hayes, Laura. Letter to Senator Gaines. California Coalition for Vaccine Choice.
20 March 2015. Web. 14 April 2016.
Hensley, Scott. “Vaccination Gaps Helped
Fuel Disneyland Measles Spread.” npr.org.
16 March 2015. Web. 4 April 2016.
Imam, Jareen. “Parents to parents:
Vaccinating is personal.” CNN. 7
February 2015. Web. 14 April 2016.
“Jacobson
v. Massachusetts.” US Supreme Court, Justia (1905). Web. 5 April 2016
Jana, Laura A. June E. Osborn. “The History of Vaccine
Challenges: Conquering Diseases, Plagued by Controversy.” Vaccinophobia and
Vaccine Controversies of the 21st Century. pgs. 1-13. 27 May
2013. Web. 7 April 2016.
Jamison, Peter. “Vaccinatio protestors at Democratic
convention compare California to Nazi Germany.” The Los Angeles Times.
16 May 2015. Web. 07 April 2016.
Liverpool, Nicholas J.O. “Civil Rights,
Civic Duties and Responsibilities.” Government
of the Commonwealth of Dominca, Office of the President. Web. 14 April
2016.
McGreevy, Patrick. “Nation of Islam Opposes California
Vaccine Mandate Bill.” The Los Angeles Times. 22 June 2015. 9 March 2016.
Meadows, Michelle. “Vaccines Are Safe and Effective.” Vaccinations.
Ed. Mary E. Williams. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2003. pgs. 18-25.
Print. 07 April 2016.
Kaplan, Rebecca. “Obama to boost U.S. involvement in fight
against Ebola.” CBS News. 15 September 2014. Web. 07 April 2016.
Kennedy, Allison M., Cedric J. Brown, and Deborah A. Gust.
“Vaccine beliefs of parents who oppose compulsory vaccination.” Public
Health Reports 120.3 (2005): 252-258. Web. 03 April 2016.
Khazan, Olga. “Wealthy L.A. Schools’ vaccination Rates Are
as Low as South Sudan’s.” theatlantic.com. 16 September 2014. Web. 5
April 2016. (Popular Source)
Lake, Anthony. “Reaching the Fifth Child:
Immunization and Equity.” UNICEF Institute of Medicine Annual Meeting,
Washington D.C. 17 October 2011. Keynote Speech. unicef.org. Web. 14 April 2016.
Lipkin, W. Ian. “Anti-Vaccination Lunacy Won’t Stop.” The
Wall Street Journal. 3 April 2016. Web. 07 April 2016.
Miller, Michael E. “The GOP’s dangerous ‘debate’ on vaccines
and autism.” The Washington Post. 17
September 2015. Web. 27 April 2016.
“Prince v. Massachusetts.” Cornell University Law School. Web. 23 April 2016.
Riedel, Stefan. “Edward Jenner and the History of Smallpox
and Vaccination.” Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) 18.1
(2005): 21–25. Print.
“Smallpox.” WebMD. 23 April 2015. Web. 6
April 2016.
Sun, Chengjun. Wei Yang. “Impact of
Vaccination on Disease Prevention and Control.” Immunology and Immune System Disorders: Vaccinations: Procedures, Types
and Controversy. Adeline I. Bezio and Braydon E. Campbell. New York, NY: Nova Biomedical, (2012). 49-74.
ProQuest ebrary. Web. 14 April 2016.
“States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From
School Immunization Requirements.”
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 21 January 2016. Web.
23 April 2016.
The Nuremberg Code. hhs.gov. Web. 14 April 2016.
Williams, Mary E., ed. Vaccinations.
Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Print. 4 April 2016.
