IHP 610 Project: Analyzing Immunization Legislation & Value Conflicts

This project outline analyzes the recent whooping cough outbreaks and the conflicting interests of key stakeholders, including Evergreen legislators, parents with religious objections, healthcare providers, affected children, and health center providers. The analysis identifies the disagreements between religious beliefs and the professional responsibilities of legislators and healthcare providers as a primary source of conflict. It also considers the potential financial burden on the school administration and community backlash upon enforcement of immunization. Informed permission is proposed as a solution, with its pros, cons, and implications on all stakeholders to be further explored. The outline references existing evidence on the intervention and potential solutions to the financial burden. The analysis includes the application of healthcare laws, policies, and financing practices to the issue, highlighting potential financial ramifications and legal risks.

Running head: MILESTONE 3 OUTLINE 1
Introduction
An overview of the recent outbreaks, particularly the whooping cough, and the significant
stakeholders, their conflicting interests in the problem, and the best solution will be provided.
Key Stakeholders
The first stakeholder is the Evergreen legislators. They need to remove the religious
exemption and enforce immunization should an outbreak occur (Gostin, 2015). The second
interested party is the parents bound by their opposing religious beliefs against the process. The
third stakeholder is the healthcare providers at the school and the administration whose
professional responsibility is to protect the predisposed children and ensure proper use of scarce
healthcare resources (Chervenak, McCullough, & Brent, 2016). The fourth stakeholder is the
affected children who need protection during such outbreaks. The fifth party is the providers at
the health center with limited knowledge on the disease and religious beliefs of the people.
Causes of Conflict and Impact
The first source of conflict is the disagreements between the law that supports firm
religious beliefs and professional responsibilities of legislators, healthcare providers, and the
administration to the children and community (Gostin, 2015). The amendment of the legislation
will require the school to finance the immunization process. Hence, the possible financial burden
the legislation will impose on the administration becomes another source of conflict. The school
might also need to consider potential backlash from the community upon enforcement.
Conflict Resolution and Implications
Informed permission is identified as the best solution. What constitutes informed
permission, its pros and cons, and implications on all stakeholders? Existing evidence on the
intervention and how the administration can resolve the financial burden will be provided.

References
Chervenak, F. A., McCullough, L. B., & Brent, R. L. (2016). Professional responsibility and
early childhood vaccination. The Journal of Pediatrics, 169, 305-309.
Gostin, L. O. (2015). Law, ethics, and public health in the vaccination debates: politics of the
measles outbreak. JAMA, 313(11), 1099-1100.