In 1796, a landmark event in the history of medicine took place when an English physician called Edward Jenner successfully inoculated an eight-year-old child against the smallpox virus, which was a leading cause of death at the time. Since then, several serious diseases which claimed the lives of countless children, were vaccinated against, thus saving lives that would have otherwise been lost. Vaccines were then developed to protect infants and children against whooping cough, polio, and rubella, with many more being developed since.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) define a vaccine as “a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease” (“Health Topics: Vaccines”.) Vaccines resemble the disease being vaccinated against, and thus stimulates the body’s immune system to fight against the disease.
The topic of vaccinations is one that is currently generating much debate. Many people advocate the use of vaccines to protect the human population from disease. However, in recent years, there has been a movement away from using a vaccine regime; rather, a more natural approach is preferred, using homeopathy, aromatherapy, food, and herbs, to stimulate the immune system. There are pros and cons to each approach.
Today most children in the Western world begin a vaccination regime from birth, up until their teenage years. Governments drive this; and maternal and child health nurses and doctors manage these programs, and often these programs come at no cost to parents. They have become standard practice. However, in recent years, many people have claimed that vaccinations are not only not necessary, but potentially harmful to infants and children because in a very limited number of cases, the child has had an allergic reaction to the vaccine itself, causing ongoing health issues or even death. However, these cases are rare, and the vast majority of children receive the vaccines with no complications. People who actively choose not to vaccinate their child not only put them at risk, but potentially endanger other children by contagion.
Those who advocate the use of natural therapies to protect children against disease do so because these therapies are non-invasive, and very safe. Naturopathy is one such natural remedy which advocates the use of an alternative approach to vaccines. Naturopathy involves bringing the body to optimal health with food, exercise, herbal remedies, and so on, in order to give the body its best chance at developing optimal immunity to disease naturally. However, the biggest argument against them is that there is no concrete evidence that they actually work, leaving the individual at risk, and thus the community at large.
The argument to use vaccines is a strong one. Countless numbers of lives have been protected since vaccines were first used. Allergic reactions are extremely rare. The risk of spread of disease is virtually nil, meaning that parents and caregivers can send their children to school from a young age without fear of them contracting deadly diseases. The main weakness of this view is that parents are really given little to no choice in their decision-making process about their own child’s health. For example, in Australia, in an attempt to encourage parents to vaccinate, children are not permitted to enter into a preschool or kindergarten unless the parent can produce the child’s healthcare record, thus proving that they have been vaccinated. The Australian government have also rolled out a ‘no jab, no pay’ policy, so that parents who do not vaccinate their children are not eligible for welfare benefits (“No Jab, No Pay – New Immunisation Requirements for Family Assistance Payments”).
The main strength of the natural argument with regard to protecting children from contagious diseases is that they are non-invasive, and not harmful to the child. This is unlike medical vaccines, which so-called ‘anti-vaccers’ believe may pose a risk of the child one day developing asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, and allergies, all irreversible. The most obvious weakness is that these remedies are simply not efficacious, and the child is not immune and therefore at risk.
I agree with the view that children should be vaccinated from birth onwards. This is my view because I have read too many stories in the news of newborn babies dying of whooping cough before they were old enough to be vaccinated, because selfish people who have not had themselves vaccinated visit these babies before they have left hospital, and unwittingly spread the disease – a disease that may not be a death sentence for an adult, but very well may be for an infant. If only people who opposed vaccines realized how lucky we are in the Western world to access to these vaccines. Today, people take them for granted. Imagine if we could go back to a time when smallpox was rife? It would be a wake-up call to those who oppose vaccines. Imagine having to raise a child who contracted polio, and could never walk? Of course the parents of those unfortunate children of the past would jump at the chance to vaccinate their child if it meant sparing the child pain, and the family medical expense. Or envisage the pain of an adult woman being told that her unborn baby is at risk of being born deaf, blind, or intellectually disabled because she was exposed to rubella and was never vaccinated? It is my firm opinion that anyone who ignores the scientific proof that vaccines should be used to protect babies and children against deadly diseases is taking a dire risk indeed.
- “Health Topics: Vaccine”. World Health Organization. Web. Accessed 29 December 2016.
- “No Jab, No Pay – New Immunisation Requirements for Family Assistance Payments”. Australian Government Department of Health. Print.
