SCI120 - Analyzing the Use of Vaccinations: Benefits and Controversies

This essay provides a detailed overview of the use of vaccinations in humans and animals, exploring both the supporting arguments and the opposing viewpoints. It begins by introducing vaccinations as an effective method for preventing infectious diseases through the administration of antigenic materials that stimulate the immune system. The essay then delves into the historical background of vaccinations, tracing their origins from ancient China and India to Edward Jenner's groundbreaking work with cowpox. It further discusses the global vaccination campaigns and the implementation of mandatory vaccination policies in various countries. The essay also addresses the controversies surrounding vaccinations, including concerns about safety, religious objections, and the alleged link between vaccines and autism. It analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of both the pro-vaccination and anti-vaccination perspectives, considering factors such as herd immunity, potential side effects, and the role of government intervention. The essay concludes by affirming the importance of vaccinations in protecting public health, reducing medical costs, and preventing long-term disabilities, while acknowledging the ethical considerations raised by vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccination movements. Desklib provides more solved assignments for students.

USE OF VACCINATIONS
Student name
Student ID
Date
Introduction to Biology SCI120

Use of vaccinations
Vaccinations are an effective way that helps in preventing infection and other serious
health outcomes that are caused by pathogens. The process refers to the administration of
antigenic materials, commonly referred to as vaccines, which stimulate the immune system of
an individual for developing adaptive immunity to pathogens. Vaccines are useful in
ameliorating or preventing infectious diseases. Vaccinating a sufficiently large number of
people often results in herd immunity or indirect protection from communicable diseases
(Rubin et al., 2013). Vaccinations among humans are responsible for the eradication of
smallpox and reducing the prevalence of measles, polio, and tetanus, on a global scale.
Vaccinations are quite different from the process of inoclulation that focuses on the
administration of unweakened live pathogens. In other words, injection of killed microbes
for stimulating the immune system against specific microbes or pathogens help in preventing
the onset of particular infectious diseases (Nazarko, 2013). This essay will elaborate on the
use of vaccinations in humans and animals and will present views, both in favour and against
the process.
Background
The process of inoculation was primarily used by the Chinese in the 10th century and
the earliest documented mentions of vaccinations are obtained from China and India.
Powdered scabs were initially used for protection against small pox. The procedure was first
established by Edward Jenner, who introduced materials from cowpox vesicles into the arm
of a boy, who later on after being inoculated with smallpox did not develop the disease
(Plotkin, 2014). Vaccination campaigns are found all around the globe, and are also
prescribed by several regulations and laws. This promoted the use of vaccines against a range
of diseases such as, rabies and anthrax. Successful vaccines were also developed by Maurice
Hilleman for treating mumps, measles. Hepatitis A and B, pneumonia, chickenpox and

influenza. With the aim of eliminating risks of outbreaks, several governments gave adopted
policies that makes vaccination mandatory for all people (Pace, 2015). A law enforced in
1853 promoted universal vaccination against smallpox in Wales and England, and imposed
fines on people who failed to adhere to the policy (Murdoch, 2015). Contemporary vaccine
policies formulated in the US also state that children should receive the set of recommended
vaccinations, before they enter public schools. However, countries with restricted financial
resources have limitations in their vaccination coverage and lead to greater mortality and
morbidity, due to the spread of communicable diseases (Hajj Hussein et al., 2015). In
addition, a range of vaccine controversies have existed prior to the introduction of the terms
vaccine and vaccination. Despite their efficacy in preventing spread of infectious diseases,
there are several uncorroborated panics regarding their safety.
Opposing viewpoints
Vaccination has been described as one of the major achievements of public health,
during the 20th century by medical and health scholars. Yet, there are several opposition to
vaccination that began with the criticism that the practice of variolation faced during the early
years. Vaccinations protect children from a range of complications and vaccination-
preventable illness (Hajj Hussein et al., 2015). Other views that made parents and key
stakeholders propose the practice of vaccination focus on the fact that all vaccines are made
to undergo careful and long review by the doctors, federal government and scientists, to
ensure their safety (Loucq, 2013). One major controversy is associated with the fact whether
mandatory policies on vaccination are responsible for violating the religious principles or
civil liberties. Initial opposing views were based on religious arguments against vaccination
that made the theologists state that diseases were sent to punish sins and any attempts to
prevent those diseases would be a form of diabolical operation. Unless some form of

environmental reservoir exists, no eradicated pathogens generally get reintroduced (Bean &
Catania, 2013).
Another contradiction arose when cases of vaccination appeared among people who
had been immunised for smallpox. These views contradicted Jenner’s statement on complete
protection offered by vaccinations (Shumate, 2014). Some people also hold the view that
reduction in spread of infectious diseases are a result of improved hygiene and sanitation, and
these diseases were already declining, before specific vaccines were used. Efficacious
vaccines have been found to protect people, when administered before the exposure, thus
illustrating its advantage. However, opposing views are related to the association between
vaccines and autism. Anti-vaccination controversies also arose in the 1970s over the safety of
diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines in Asia, Europe, North America and Australia.
Mistrust in vaccination also makes several parents oppose the procedure, due to their distrust
in the government, the industry and scepticism in science (MacDonald & Finlay, 2013).
This can be associated with the drop in rates of influenza vaccination in the 2015-
2016 flu season, when approximately 42% of adults in the US were vaccinated, a drop by 2%
from previous season (Skowronski et al., 2016). These opposing views give rise to the
concept of vaccine hesistancy that refers to an active desire of people to omit or defer all
vaccines that have been routinely recommended by the government. The bandwagon effect
also creates an impact on vaccine hesitancy when the society begins to get adopted to the
view of vaccine hesitant people, and increase the probability of additional people embracing
vaccine diffident viewpoints.
Strength and weakness of the views
The major strength of the view that promotes vaccination encompasses the fact that
immunization saves life of children and have facilitated the extinction of several life-

threatening diseases. Other strengths can be related to the fact that vaccines are administered,
only after receiving approval and are cost-effective. Furthermore, the fact that immunisation
can save large families and are also a good form of investment that is generally covered by
insurance are some of the factors that are the assets of the supporting views. In addition, other
fortes are linked with herd immunity and protection of future generations. However, some of
its weaknesses are related to disappearance of diseases that the vaccines target and the fact
that vaccines are based on artificial immunisation procedures that are less effective than
natural immunity (Dube, Vivion & MacDonald, 2015). The opposing views also hold true in
that all vaccines have been found to carry risks of life-threatening anaphylaxis in 1 per
million children. This is a major strength since rotavirus vaccines have caused
intussusception that requires hospitalisation of 1 in 20,000 babies in the US (Desai et al.,
2013).
Presence of harmful ingredients in vaccines such as, thimerosal, a mercuric compound
in flu vaccine has been linked to autism, thereby establishing the strengths of the opposing
view (Venkatraman, Garg & Kumar, 2015). In addition, the conflicting outlooks were also
supported by the fact the governments should not interfere in the medical choices of children.
It should be left to parents and caregivers. The differing views also take into consideration
that concept of vaccine overload that elaborates on the fact that administering multiple
vaccines at once to a child might overpower or weaken the developing immune system and
result in adverse health effects (Hulsey & Bland, 2015). Despite presence of scientific
evidences that are successful in strongly challenging these ideas, quite a few parents hold the
belief that vaccine overload is responsible for development of autism in children. However,
some weaknesses of the opposing view were related to the fact that the FDA and CDC have
determined the worth of most vaccines, and adverse reactions to vaccines are rare, 1 per
million vaccinations.

Strength of view that is agreed upon
The view that proposes the use of vaccines are chosen because the major role of
vaccines are related to protecting the lives of children and the ingredients used are considered
safe in limited doses. Owing to the fact that supporters illustrate the role of vaccination for
bringing about dramatic reductions in illness and death from communicable diseases and
upkeep its importance as a vital measure for averting disease resurgence (Zipursky et al.,
2014). Most supposed adverse reactions due to vaccinations are generally unproven.
Although such vaccinations might have occurred during the time of vaccination, this might
have been purely coincidental (Browne et al., 2015). This forms the basis of rejecting claims
that link vaccination to different diseases such as, autism. Additionally, vaccination of the
entire population has the spin-off value of herd immunity.
Presence of a large proportion of individuals who are immune creates difficulties for
viruses to spread, due to the dearth of susceptible targets. Some other factors that lead to the
selection of the supporting views are related to the fact that diseases create huge financial
burden on the families and the society as well (Larson et al., 2014). The direct and indirect
costs of diseases can exceed an estimated $10 billion per year. The high expenses of the
vaccine preventable diseases make it imperative to promote vaccination. In addition, vaccines
given in schools, in accordance with routine programs also help in providing life-long
protection to the children from contagious diseases.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that vaccines are one of the safest immunisation products
that are freely available and cost less time and money in preventing the spread of infectious
diseases, thereby reducing medical costs and potential long term disability. Moreover,
vaccinating mothers can also help in protecting their unborn children from several infectious
diseases, which have the potential of preventing the occurrence of birth defects among the

children. The concepts of vaccine overload or anti-vaccination movements raise a number of
ethical difficulties, at instances when the number of unvaccinated individuals threaten harm
to a larger population. Hence, the views that support the administration of vaccines are
carefully chosen, taking into consideration the several health benefits that immunisation or
vaccination programs offer.

References
Bean, S. J., & Catania, J. A. (2013). Vaccine perceptions among Oregon health care
providers. Qualitative health research, 23(9), 1251-1266. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313501891
Browne, M., Thomson, P., Rockloff, M. J., & Pennycook, G. (2015). Going against the herd:
psychological and cultural factors underlying the ‘vaccination confidence gap’. PLoS
One, 10(9), e0132562. Retrieved from- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132562
Desai, R., Cortese, M. M., Meltzer, M. I., Shankar, M., Tate, J. E., Yen, C., ... & Parashar, U.
D. (2013). Potential intussusception risk versus benefits of rotavirus vaccination in the
United States. The Pediatric infectious disease journal, 32(1), 1.
doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e318270362c
Dube, E., Vivion, M., & MacDonald, N. E. (2015). Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and
the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications. Expert review of
vaccines, 14(1), 99-117. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.1586/14760584.2015.964212
Gupta, A., & Chaphalkar, S. R. (2015). Immunoadjuvant potential of Azardichta indica
against rabies, hepatitis and DPT vaccine antigen. International Journal of Medical
and pharmaceutical sciences, 5(7), 1-5. Retrieved from-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amit_Gupta9/publication/299617561_IMMUN
OADJUVANT_POTENTIAL_OF_AZARDICHTA_INDICA_AGAINST_RABIES_
HEPATITIS_AND_DPT_VACCINE_ANTIGEN/links/
57033c2508aedbac126f4942.pdf

Hajj Hussein, I., Chams, N., Chams, S., El Sayegh, S., Badran, R., Raad, M., ... & Jurjus, A.
(2015). Vaccines through centuries: major cornerstones of global health. Frontiers in
public health, 3, 269. Retrieved from- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00269
Hulsey, E., & Bland, T. (2015). Immune overload: Parental attitudes toward combination and
single antigen vaccines. Vaccine, 33(22), 2546-2550. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.020
Larson, H. J., Jarrett, C., Eckersberger, E., Smith, D. M., & Paterson, P. (2014).
Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global
perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine, 32(19),
2150-2159. Retrieved from- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.081
Loucq, C. (2013). Vaccines today, vaccines tomorrow: a perspective. Clinical and
experimental vaccine research, 2(1), 4-7. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.7774/cevr.2013.2.1.4
MacDonald, N. E., & Finlay, J. C. (2013). Working with vaccine-hesitant
parents. Paediatrics & Child Health, 18(5), 265-267. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/18.5.265
Murdoch, L. (2015). Anti-vaccination and the Politics of Grief for Children in Late Victorian
England. In Childhood, Youth and Emotions in Modern History (pp. 242-260).
Palgrave Macmillan, London. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137484840_13
Nazarko, L. (2013). How do vaccines work to protect people from disease?. Nursing And
Residential Care, 15(12), 770-775. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.12968/nrec.2013.15.12.770

Pace, V. M. (2015). What You Don’t Know About Vaccines Can Hurt You. Missouri
medicine, 112(2), 106-108. Retrieved from-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Voran2/publication/276147367_Telemed
icine_and_beyond/links/566cd7a608ae62b05f08a47b.pdf#page=24
Plotkin, S. (2014). History of vaccination. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 111(34), 12283-12287. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400472111
Rubin, L. G., Levin, M. J., Ljungman, P., Davies, E. G., Avery, R., Tomblyn, M., ... & Kang,
I. (2013). 2013 IDSA clinical practice guideline for vaccination of the
immunocompromised host. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 58(3), e44-e100. Retrieved
from- https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit684
Shumate, S. (2014). A Deadly Disease and its Eradication: The Discovery of the Smallpox
Vaccine. Retrieved from-
http://rudygarns.com/class/306/lib/exe/fetch.php/assignments/shumate.draft11.pdf
Skowronski, D. M., Chambers, C., Sabaiduc, S., De Serres, G., Winter, A. L., Dickinson, J.
A., ... & Eshaghi, A. (2016). A perfect storm: impact of genomic variation and serial
vaccination on low influenza vaccine effectiveness during the 2014–2015
season. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 63(1), 21-32. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw176
Venkatraman, A., Garg, N., & Kumar, N. (2015). Greater freedom of speech on Web 2.0
correlates with dominance of views linking vaccines to autism. Vaccine, 33(12),
1422-1425. Retrieved from- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.01.078
Zipursky, S., Djingarey, M. H., Lodjo, J. C., Olodo, L., Tiendrebeogo, S., & Ronveaux, O.
(2014). Benefits of using vaccines out of the cold chain: delivering meningitis A

vaccine in a controlled temperature chain during the mass immunization campaign in
Benin. Vaccine, 32(13), 1431-1435. Retrieved from-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.038