The Measles Vaccination And How It Has Resulted In A Social Plague
The vaccination against measles is a hotly debated topic in America. This has caused the government to be very concerned, as have the citizens. The disease has spread quickly, both literally and metaphorically. As someone who is vaccinated I was dumbfounded by the article, but even more so curious to know why anyone would object to such a treatment. I read Bruenig’s essay with genuine curiosity and I believe that it has helped me to gain a greater understanding for the opposition. Bruenig’s argument for the opponents, on the other hand, could still be argued. The article suggests that the issue is more than a simple personal choice. Despite the fact that both sides make very reasonable arguments, there is still some confusion surrounding this topic. This article by Elizabeth Bruenig sheds light on the cultural shift that is taking place or has taken place in the past few years. It also focuses more on larger social issues that are not being addressed.
Both sides, as the article demonstrates, are adamant about their opinions on a person’s right to vaccination. Bruenig contrasts the values that each country, the United States as well as Sweden, holds dear to its citizens and government. There is still ambiguity surrounding serious health issues such as vaccinations for measles. While the author did a decent job in laying out the basic outline of the topic, it would have been helpful to provide statistics/data regarding Sweden’s anti-vaccination groups. It is important to provide more details on Sweden statistics so that her audience can form an informed opinion. The author uses data to show that there is no “unanimity” or “cooperation” in the United States regarding the topic. But she doesn’t explain why these anti-vaccination areas exist. Her argument is flawed because she fails to address the opposing side. She writes in her conclusion: “Compare the research about Americans who are against vaccination with Swedes who voluntarily sign up to receive optional vaccines. It seems that anti-vaccination opponents are amongst us most Americans” (Bruenig). Bruenig’s numbers may be correct, but Sweden could provide evidence that would support her claims. Comparing statistics with a similar objective would make her argument more credible.
Bruenig stresses the importance of political ideologies, which can influence a person’s decision about vaccinations. Individual rights are fundamental for life, as all Americans know. Conflicts can easily occur when individuals are allowed to have their freedom in terms of their rights. The author uses this as a second basis to support his argument. American freedom is defined by the concept of personal independence and self-reliance. Bruenig argues that the freedom to choose not to be vaccinated is often at the expense of the health and wellbeing of others. Bruenig claims that American ideals like “consumer supremacy, individualism and self-determination” as well as a dim view of public goods such individualism in health encourage anti-vaccination.
American Individualism can lead to Americans being more self-righteous. They may even become oblivious to other people’s needs and concerns. As a result, exercising civil rights in a deadly issue like the measles is a concern. This raises an interesting question, however: Does America’s need to be independent hinder the security and safety of all? Does American individualism devalue other people? Is it acceptable to put personal interests ahead of social responsibility? Which one is more important? This question made me aware of how serious the situation is, but I was also interested in what each side had to say.
Bruenig argues Sweden has a liberaler approach in its policy. Sweden, it appears, has a much higher percentage of parents and children who are vaccinated. Bruenig supports the claim of Research Ronnerstrand whose findings were based a few factors like “age, sex, gender, education, and even the degree of concern regarding an H1N1pandemic. Therefore, the decision to vaccinate a child or not was not influenced by a particular person’s knowledge or panic about infectious diseases” (Bruenig). This information is essential to establish the level of commitment that Sweden’s citizens have to their government.
Bruenig writes, “Trust involves mass coordination and consistent trust, something that neoliberal political systems in America greatly undervalue” (Bruenig). Bruenig argues that the Swedish culture is the best way to understand the current problem. It goes beyond individual choices and ideals which are a big part of American culture. The idea of government being amoral and unreliable raises suspicion among people who are skeptical about the motives, the intentions, and the responsibilities. It makes sense that Americans, in contrast to Sweden, are heavily dependent on a market-driven system, which is heavily driven by consumer demand and competition. This could lead them to overlook or dismiss other’s needs.
Bruenig should have provided more information to her audience. Both sides make good arguments. While it’s clear she has a strong bias for Sweden, the audience can be left wondering if she actually provides accurate information. It is important to address the issue of religious freedom, which is often used in defense of vaccinations. She stresses the need for American independence to defend themselves against medical protection. However, she could address in detail, the concerns of those who are strongly religious. Strongly religious people view vaccinations in a negative light. Bruenig should have addressed the arguments and concerns of those who are strongly religious, or even suggested possible solutions to their problems. Bruenig emphasizes, too, the importance of stronger relationships between American government officials and their citizens. What can be done by both parties, institutions and people, to create a deeper level of trust? What if such a resolution is enough to motivate individuals to act on this issue?
Bruenig’s articles has made me more aware of the ethical and social issues which lie deep beneath a given issue. Bruenig explains that by questioning the core of a problem, you can find out what the root of it is. Bruenig’s article expresses the subliminal message that addressing social issues may have a more complex and damaging solution than a simple yes or no. Even though the right to get vaccinated against measles might seem obvious to certain people, others may find it just as confusing.
