As technology and modern medicine continue to evolve, more discussion has surrounded the debate about whether or not parents should be required to vaccinate their children. As a pragmatic philosopher I have studied topics such as the vaccination issue. The vaccination debate is obviously complex and multifaceted, which explains why the heated discussion continues to exist. Despite these complexities, I believe my principles of individualistic and collective liberalism are an interesting perspective when we consider this issue. Before proceeding with the analysis, it should be noted that in my work, I actively promote the pragmatic approach to finding a solution. In other words, we must consider the medical knowledge we have gained over time and risks at stake. With those considerations we can explore the most realistic solutions to this issue. Additionally, it should be noted that by liberty, we mean the prevention of tyranny of political rulers comprising the governmental system. Ultimately, this conversation comes down to two questions: “Should parents have the right to decide on their children’s medical care?” and “Is government intervention necessary if a non-vaccinated child is putting other members of society at risk?”
In recent years, more cases of measles, mumps, and rubella have surfaced, which of course, in turn, has added fuel to the fire. While the infamous report claiming the MMR vaccine could possibly be related to autism has been unfounded, it seems as though more parents these days continue to label themselves as “vaccine-hesitant”. By the definition I provide for individualistic liberalism, it would seem as though parents should have the right to make decisions regarding their children’s medical care. However, I would like to point out a crucial exception to this principle. John Stuart Mill in On Liberty says,“[T]
hat the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” According to Mill, government intervention is appropriate if the decision or action is causing harm to the society at large.
Although I am not by any means an expert on vaccinations or infectious diseases, I’d like to discuss the contributing factors of the exception mentioned above. Outside of measles, a disease of particular interest is leukemia in young children. Children diagnosed with leukemia face challenges as their immune system is compromised. Additionally, patients undergoing chemo and radiation therapy are advised against vaccinations in order to obtain an immune response. Every minor illness could expand into more complicated conditions that require additional treatments. When parents choose not to vaccinate their children, they increase the risk for people who can’t be vaccinated, such as infants under one, children and adults with weak immune systems, and cancer patients.
Medical researchers strongly advocate towards vaccinations, and emphasize that by not vaccinating your children, you are not only putting them at risk, but you are also potentially putting others in the community at risk. Society is constantly changing and evolving, so our political intelligence must continue to evolve just as frequently. Drawn from my own work, Liberalism and Social Action, it’s important to acknowledge that “[w]ithout a background of informed political intelligence, direct action in behalf of professed liberal ends may end in development of political irresponsibility.” Because I am a strong advocate for the most pragmatic solution and given the knowledge medical researchers have provided, I believe this is a matter of collectivist liberalism. Based on Mill’s opinion on liberty, if the community at large is at risk, governmental intervention would be appropriate. Due to the potential risk of disease transmission, mandatory vaccinations or governmental regulation would benefit the community and prevent the bigger risk of tyranny.
