AVAG's Argument on Vaccines and Independent Advice

This article discusses AVAG's argument on vaccines and the importance of seeking independent advice. It analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the argument and examines the language and rhetoric used. The report also discusses the use of a research paper by AVAG and provides recommendations for improving vaccination rates.

PHILOSOPHY 1
PHILOSOPHY
By (name)
Name of the course
Tutor’s name
The name of the University
The country or City where it’s located
The date

PHILOSOPHY 2
The summary of Scenario
What the AVAG is committed to doing, is helping the individuals to have safe health. That is the
reason why their main objective is to assist people in making an informed decision when it
comes to matters to do with vaccines. AVAG individuals tend to seek proper independent advice
when dealing with medicine. In this case, most people were taught to trust the doctors and
pharmaceuticals companies by extension. AVAG don't think individuals should not seek advice
from the doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Doctors get vaccines from vaccines
manufacturing companies. This overwhelms the information on their effectiveness, necessity,
and safety of using them. Thus, AVAG believes that medical professionals do not give
individuals the proper independent advice they need. Hence, AVAG is encouraging people to
carry out their research and make the right health decision for their families.
Standardization of the argument
1. Individuals tend to seek proper independent advice when dealing with vaccines.
2. Individuals should not seek advice from doctors and pharmaceutical companies.
3. Doctors are not able to give good independent advice because, they get the information
on the effectiveness, necessity, and safety of using vaccines from the vaccine
manufacturing companies.
C. People should carry out their research and make the right health decision for
their families.

PHILOSOPHY 3
Strengths and weaknesses of the argument
One of the strengths in the case is that many individuals will tend to seek clear independent
health advice (Donovan et al. 2011). According to (Beard et al. 2016) in this modern world, the
health practitioners’ have encountered with various patients withholding about taking their
children for vaccinations. There are many reasons which cause great oppositions among patients.
The first reason is the philosophic and religious objection where to some, mandatory
vaccinations by the state might be interfering with what they believe hence; it should be left for
individual choices (Brotherton et al. 2011) Secondly, other people are concerned about the health
safety of the vaccines. Therefore, many individuals may tend to go for more advice before
getting vaccines. Thus, all the health experts have a significant role in carefully listening and
understanding, their beliefs, and fears about the vaccines and take them into considerations. Such
efforts will not only strengthen the relationship between the doctors and patients but also will
help in seeking appropriate advice to convince the patient the significance of vaccination
(Garland et al. 2011).
A significant number of parents will delay in taking their kids for vaccination due to the increase
of high risk to contract vaccine-preventable diseases and interfering with the immunity.
Hesitating in taking vaccines can, therefore, be linked to demographic and psychological factors
like the attitude towards vaccines, trust in health science, and social beliefs. The act of whether
or not to vaccinate the child among many parents is socially forced decision which focuses on
the health of a child; hence, parents should be highly involved (Okoroafor., 2017). The high
involvement can result in an emphasis on the side effect associated with vaccines that they
already know.

PHILOSOPHY 4
The weakness in the argument is the advice on patients not to seek information on vaccines from
the pharmaceutical companies and doctors. According to (Murray et al. 2011), health
practitioners are the source of medical knowledge and very vital role models. One of the
researches conducted in the United States indicated that out of all the parents that consulted the
doctor, 83% was given vaccination and the other remaining percentage was planning to adhere to
the recommendations (Gao et al. 2010). Although, the study stated that the guidance on the
patients could be done better by the doctors well known to the patients. Heywood et al. (2014)
was able to differentiate the vaccine-hesitant and vaccine delayers, which was regarded as the
right decision of various patients to protect the health of their families. However, the author
emphasizes more on constructive engagement between such patients and the doctors to come up
with the right decision. With regards to Ward et al. (2013), the vaccination process is more
complex, and the best people to communicate this are medical experts. Doctors and
pharmaceutical companies have also developed many of the vaccination research materials.
These materials are made for high-information searchers, and the majority of such individuals
are vaccination seekers (Tabrizi et al. 2014). Majority of expectant mothers will depend more on
their doctors on when or whether to vaccinate their infants. That means doctors are very critical
in health decision making in which case, vaccination advice cannot be ignored as its one of their
key roles (Gertig et al. 2011).
Analysis of the language and rhetoric used in the- “Don’t You Think You Should Know?”
The language used in the- “Don’t You Think You Should Know?” information sheet is
informative. The title of the article and that of the Australian Vaccine Awareness groups gives
the main objective of the campaign which is all about providing the Australian communities on
the safety of Vaccinations (Ali et al. 2013). The AVAG is committed to helping the people to

PHILOSOPHY 5
keep their own and the lives of their family members safe and healthy as possible. That the main
aim of helping them to make informed decisions concerning vaccinations. For instance, to
promote the individuals makes the informed decisions, AVAG has been able to provide the
people with the following information about the facts the pharmaceuticals companies that would
not want the patients to think on vaccines.
Such facts concern the side effects and the ingredients associated with vaccines. Individuals
getting the vaccinations are rarely shown the ingredients used in developing the vaccine as well
as its side effects (Porcelli et al. 2013). The health experts are reluctant in revealing the side
effects and ingredients and that why the AVAG want the people to be informed about the
following the critical components in vaccines. Namely; Cell debris, proteins, and DNA from an
aborted fetus, Cell debris, proteins and DNA from animals like monkeys, Aluminum and
mercury which among the dangerous metals. The side effects are allergic reactions, Guillain-
Barre syndrome, Aseptic meningitis, multiple sclerosis, and Transverse myelitis. Thus, posing a
big rhetoric question which state, if you had such information before, would take your child for
vaccinations?
The rhetoric used in the argument is the paradox. The highest number of people that get diseases
are those vaccinated. It’s a fact that in case of disease outbreak, the vaccinated kids outnumber
those that are not vaccinated, especially with diseases like measles. That means there is no single
vaccine that is 100% efficient. The other fact is that people who are vaccinated in countries like
the United States are more than those who are not vaccinated. The last point is that allergies,
cancer, autoimmune diseases, and asthma are much more in this world of vaccination than the
past years. These infections were commonly known but did not affect many people as it is today.
The increase in these diseases was noted in the year 1990 in many different parts of the world

PHILOSOPHY 6
(Ndam et al. 2017). This was a coincidence of sudden rise in the number of vaccine doses in
those particular countries (Nagao et 2016).
The report on AVAG's use of the (2017) Warner at.al paper
According to AVAG, the use of vaccines on HPV (Human Papillomavirus) has not yet achieved
the target among the adolescents within the United States (Warner et al. 2017). This was
facilitated by the missed opportunity and health expert recommendation, which influenced the
decisions of many adolescent people and the parents. Other social factors that facilitated the low
target were; the status of insurance, age, and ethnicity. The three aspects played a pivotal role to
identify the least group of individuals not likely to take the vaccination. A significant number of
systems reviews indicated that only the parents of low education accepted the vaccination of
Human Papillomavirus although there are mixed results on the impact from the ethnicity,
insurance status and the level of income within the household. Another study indicated that the
barriers to Human papillomavirus as getting an only risk-based recommendation from the
healthcare providers, limited information, and financial constraints (Warner et al. 2017).
In the United State, the NIS-teens have been used the previous years in studying the link between
the HPV vaccinations and sociodemographic aspects. One of the research showed that the NIS-
teen data spanning in the year 2008 to 2011 HPV vaccinations were different and below that of
the adolescent from low socioeconomic background and individuals from ethnic groups. Other
than coming from below-poverty and ethnic groups, there were other factors like age and having
been given other adolescent vaccinations (Warner et al. 2017).

PHILOSOPHY 7
The gender aspect also contributed to the low target of HPV vaccination, where males made the
majority of individuals who had not received the information concerning the Human
Papillomavirus vaccinations. The males were also less like to have not taken the vaccination
when compared to females. For example, in the year 2013, only 6.8 percent of males took the
total three doses of HPV vaccines, while 33.4 percent females were able to receive the three
treatments (Warner et al. 2017). The other finding was that many of the parents were not
educated on which gender should take the vaccination. This is because in the past, only females
were recommended for HPV vaccination, and the later, the boys were as well advised to take the
vaccination. Although the existing record shows the Human Papillomavirus vaccination for boys
remains low.
Recommendations
Firstly, Introduction of other alternatives to increase the vaccinations other than the childcare
ban. Instead, the government should give regular updates to various stakeholders concerning the
inoculations recommended by the advisory committee for the immunization procedures. Doing
so, it will help in raising the percentage of immunization, thus preventing the diseases (Nyhan et
al. 2014). The federal government should also work together with health professionals in
developing and distributing vaccination communication strategies and education materials. The
distributed education materials should state clearly the importance of vaccinating children and
when it should be done. Besides, the federal government should equip the health providers
through training to be able to educate the parents on matters to do with vaccinations. The clinical
information and the side effects should as well be made available to help the parents in making
an informed decision.

PHILOSOPHY 8
Callum Fenech should have emphasized on the introduction of penalties by the federal
government. Italy and the United States have recently modified their policies to penalize the
parents who fail to vaccinate their children. The act seems to align with Dawson's seven ethical
principles concerning public vaccination programs. These programs can have trust, risks, and
benefits, justice and equity, reciprocity, and effectiveness. The penalty should be applied
appropriately in such that it does not oppress low-income individuals. However, the
implementations of these penalties in various countries have compounding disadvantages for the
kids in putting them at great dangers since it can create more alienations from the healthcare
systems. Besides, the "No Jab, No Pay" was implemented with no-fault vaccine compensation
injuries and the side effects. That means, there is a need for evaluating the penalty policy from
time to time to avoid negative implications.
The government should consider reviewing vaccination legislation to raise the following four
points. First, to establish an effective way of controlling the outbreak of diseases, sustaining and
reaching high vaccination rate and devices, the better ways of introducing the new vaccines.
Secondly reviewing the legislation will provide a reliable supply of effective and safe vaccines
which will allow many people to be willing to take their children for vaccination. Thirdly, it will
provide allowances for the exemptions to compulsory vaccine administration that might limit the
public backlash. Lastly, revising the legislation will raise the burden of the federal government in
ensuring the safety of vaccines.
The federal government must consider eliminating the non-medical exemptions to enable
equitable distributing vaccination burdens. This is because many parents feel that they are unduly
punished or coerced in taking their children to be vaccinated (Dempsey et al. 2011). The
coercion might cause the hesitant by the parents, thus creating the barrier for the government in

PHILOSOPHY 9
achieving their target of vaccination. In most cases, the vaccines might go wrong; therefore, the
parents should not be coerced but should be given more time to make the right decision for their
children. In one of the occasions, the rotavirus vaccines were rolled out within the United States
and caused a severe side effects issue until they were withdrawn.
Conclusion
A small percentage of individuals in Australia are not in support of vaccines and are not likely to
change their minds. The resistance is attributed to the decreased rate of parents taking their kids
for vaccinations when compared to the previous years. Therefore, health practitioners should be
given appropriate resources and tool to educate the vaccine-hesitant people. This will increase
the credibility of the science on how it's perceived and communicated to the parents.

PHILOSOPHY 10
References
Ali, H., Donovan, B., Wand, H., Read, T.R., Regan, D.G., Grulich, A.E., Fairley, C.K. and Guy,
R.J., 2013. Genital warts in young Australians five years into national human papillomavirus
vaccination programme: national surveillance data. Bmj, 346, p.f2032.
Beard, F.H., Hull, B.P., Leask, J., Dey, A. and McIntyre, P.B., 2016. Trends and patterns in
vaccination objection, Australia, 2002–2013. Medical Journal of Australia, 204(7), pp.275-275.
Brotherton, J.M., Fridman, M., May, C.L., Chappell, G., Saville, A.M. and Gertig, D.M., 2011.
Early effect of the HPV vaccination programme on cervical abnormalities in Victoria, Australia:
an ecological study. The Lancet, 377(9783), pp.2085-2092.
Dempsey, A.F., Schaffer, S., Singer, D., Butchart, A., Davis, M. and Freed, G.L., 2011.
Alternative vaccination schedule preferences among parents of young children. Pediatrics-
English Edition, 128(5), p.848.
Donovan, B., Franklin, N., Guy, R., Grulich, A.E., Regan, D.G., Ali, H., Wand, H. and Fairley,
C.K., 2011. Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination and trends in genital warts in
Australia: analysis of national sentinel surveillance data. The Lancet infectious diseases, 11(1),
pp.39-44.

PHILOSOPHY 11
Gao, Z., Gidding, H.F., Wood, J.G. and MacIntyre, C.R., 2010. Modelling the impact of one-
dose vs. two-dose vaccination regimens on the epidemiology of varicella zoster virus in
Australia. Epidemiology & Infection, 138(4), pp.457-468.
Garland, S.M., Skinner, S.R. and Brotherton, J.M., 2011. Adolescent and young adult HPV
vaccination in Australia: achievements and challenges. Preventive medicine, 53, pp.S29-S35.
Gertig, D.M., Brotherton, J.M. and Saville, M., 2011. Measuring human papillomavirus (HPV)
vaccination coverage and the role of the National HPV Vaccination Program Register, Australia.
Sexual health, 8(2), pp.171-178.
Heywood, A.E., Wang, H., Macartney, K.K. and McIntyre, P., 2014. Varicella and herpes zoster
hospitalizations before and after implementation of one-dose varicella vaccination in Australia:
an ecological study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92, pp.593-604.
Murray, F.E., Gans, J.S. and Craven, M.L., 2011. How Does the Republic of Science Shape the
Patent System-Broadening the Institutional Analysis of Innovation beyond Patents. UC Irvine L.
Rev., 1, p.356.
Nagao, M., Fujisawa, T., Ihara, T. and Kino, Y., 2016. Highly increased levels of IgE antibodies
to vaccine components in children with influenza vaccine–associated anaphylaxis. Journal of
Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 137(3), pp.861-867.
Ndam, N.T., Deloron, P., Gnidéhou, S.U.A.C., Quiviger, M., Bigey, P. and Scherman, D.,
Institut Francais de Rech Scient pour Dev en Cooperation ORSTOM, 2017. Vaccines against
pregnancy-associated malaria. U.S. Patent 9,540,425.
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S. and Freed, G.L., 2014. Effective messages in vaccine
promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), pp.e835-e842.

PHILOSOPHY 12
Okoroafor, O.N., 2017. Evaluation of Factors Limiting Turkey Production in Enugu State and
Comparison of Pathology Associated With Newcastle Disease in Turkeys and Chickens
(Doctoral dissertation).
Porcelli, S.A. and Venkataswamy, M.M., Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 2013. Ceramide-
like glycolipid-associated bacterial vaccines and uses thereof. U.S. Patent Application
13/808,495.
Tabrizi, S.N., Brotherton, J.M., Kaldor, J.M., Skinner, S.R., Liu, B., Bateson, D., McNamee, K.,
Garefalakis, M., Phillips, S., Cummins, E. and Malloy, M., 2014. Assessment of herd immunity
and cross-protection after a human papillomavirus vaccination programme in Australia: a repeat
cross-sectional study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 14(10), pp.958-966.
Ward, K., Quinn, H., Bachelor, M., Bryant, V., Campbell-Lloyd, S., Newbound, A., Scully, M.,
Webby, R. and McIntyre, P.B., 2013. Adolescent school-based vaccination in Australia.
Communicable diseases intelligence quarterly report, 37(2), pp.E156-67.
Warner, E.L., Ding, Q., Pappas, L.M., Henry, K. and Kepka, D., 2017. White, affluent, educated
parents are least likely to choose HPV vaccination for their children: a cross-sectional study of
the National Immunization Study–teen. BMC pediatrics, 17(1), p.200.