Vaccination Conflict

The article I will be responding to can be found HERE. This article is an editorial piece from the Los Angeles Times and is made up of submissions from readers who have similar opinions on vaccination policies.

There is a lot of debate in society today about whether vaccinations (especially vaccinations for children) should be required, and whether or not this ruling is necessary as it could be related to a public health crisis. "Anti-Vaxxers" as they have been labeled are those who believe vaccinations harm their children, usually with the response given that vaccinations cause autism. This is not backed by scientific research.

In this article, "Help a cancer patient -- reject anti-vaccine nonsense", the stance taken by the contributors is clear just from the title. Three different writers submitted their stance on why vaccinations should be taken seriously, and why they should be required by law. The first piece was written by Stephanie Strout, a widow whose husband died of cancer. In this plea, she uses pathos to appeal to the reader's emotions. The intended audience is, as with all of the other sections in this article, parents who identify as "Anti-Vaxxers." I believe that Strout makes a strong case. Cancer patients and others who are highly susceptible to illness deserve to be protected from disease, preventable illnesses should not cost them their life. This should be any easy enough concept for anyone to understand.

The second piece of the article is written by Bob Wietnig from Simi Valley. Wietnig takes a different approach to the same stance. His claim is much shorter and does not try to appeal to emotions. Rather, he provides evidence from the past to support why vaccines are taken for granted today. The child death toll has lowered significantly, where as in the past preventable illness made up for a large majority of child deaths. His argument is not as strong as he keeps it short and to the point, but I do agree with how he opened his statement. "Anti-Vaxxers" seem to mostly disagree with the power of authority and have a general distrust for what science has been telling them. This issue would be resolved if vaccines were kept mandatory.

Lastly, the editorial ends with a submission from Karen Scott Browdy, and another strong emotional appeal to the reader. All of these submissions are clearly intended for strongly anti-vaccination individuals as they attempt to convince them to change their mind and take up the stance of pro-vaccination. Browdy details the toll that preventable illness has taken on her family, but also manages to provide a silver lining and to express the benefit that vaccination has had on her life. Her entry is a story of hope, one that strongly supports the stance that vaccinations have more life saving qualities than harm. In the end, doesn't all humanity just want their right to life?