Classical Argument Paper

[EarthRootsStarSoul]

I'm writing a Classical Argument paper against routine childhood vaccination. Can anyone give me some advice or ideas? Topics to cover? Resources? Thanks!

[EarthRootsStarSoul]

Just trying to focus my argument, if anyone wants to answer this:

If vaccines were completely 100% safe, would you vaccinate?

I'm thinking I could focus the paper on adverse reactions, because there are so many reasons and ideas to sift through. Bad reactions are the heart of the issue right?

[Otto]

Originally Posted by EarthRootsStarSoul

Bad reactions are the heart of the issue right?

I think the reasons are more varied than this overall. Religious exemptions per se at least imply a motivation that does not exist simply on a practical level, for one example. Some, in the event of a bad outcome either way, would prefer a negative outcome that could be conceived of as being one of omission rather than commission. And so forth.

[shanniesue2]

Originally Posted by EarthRootsStarSoul

Just trying to focus my argument, if anyone wants to answer this:

If vaccines were completely 100% safe, would you vaccinate?

I'm thinking I could focus the paper on adverse reactions, because there are so many reasons and ideas to sift through. Bad reactions are the heart of the issue right?

you're asking two different things, here. Absence of bad reactions would not necessarily mean that the vax was safe (IMO). It would just mean that the vaccine did not cause an immediate injury.

I, personally, worry about the long term health implications of injecting the body with all those chemicals, many of which are know human carcinogens/toxins. So there may be long term health problems that occur due to vax, but nobody knows for sure b/c there has never been any controlled long term study comparing the safety/health of vax vs. non vax.

So to answer your questions more precisely, I would vaccinate if:
1) "Vaccines were 100% safe" (using your words... this is not how I would phrase it)
and
2) it were proven that vaccines did not have a negative impact on long term health or
2a) that any long term impact on health was minor enough and that the benefit of not contracting the childhood disease was great enough make a reasonable risk/benefit analysis

But there are also currently issues surrounding how adverse reactions are reported and compensated for. And many health professionals will refuse to acknowledge that a vaccine could have possibly caused someone harm. Even when all the evidence is staring them in the face. So there are some cultural value issues surrounding vaccines that cause me suspicion.

Plus there are issues about $ flow and conflict of interest that I don't have enough info on to be able to go into any depth.

And none of those reasons touch on religious beliefs against vaxing... or on medical contraindications. I also know that there are discussions about herd immunity and germ theory and all sorts of stuff that I see people on here talking about, that I don't really know very much about.

The vaccine debate is such a complex beast. I would personally find it VERY difficult to write a paper on, simply because there is so much to consider. I think that you are going to have to get VERY focused on which aspect of the vaccine debate you want to focus on and stick with that.

[EarthRootsStarSoul]

By adverse reactions I do include both short term and long term consequences.

It is a complex issue, and I am trying to narrow it down for my paper. My one main argument would be that vaccines aren't safe, and even that is broad enough to write a good paper, since there are a myriad of possible reactions.

[EarthRootsStarSoul]

Originally Posted by Otto

I think the reasons are more varied than this overall. Religious exemptions per se at least imply a motivation that does not exist simply on a practical level, for one example. Some, in the event of a bad outcome either way, would prefer a negative outcome that could be conceived of as being one of omission rather than commission. And so forth.

Well, I can't really make an argument about religions exemptions, so I'll probably leave that out.

[ammiga]

I think the issue is way more complicated than vaccine reactions when it comes to whether or not vaxing is safe.

For instance, I think that the human body is stronger when it is allowed to naturally combat most illnesses. So, regardless of a vaccine reaction, the safest way to have a strong immune system is not vaxing.

Also things to look into...
- is it safe to be exposed to multiple diseases at once? You aren't supposed to vax if you are sick, but multiple vaxes at once essentially pile diseases onto a diseased person.

- is it considered at vaccine reaction if the problem happens decades after the fact?

-how will you address other potential factors that make vaccines more or less safe? ex: allergies, tylenol, diet, breastfed, etc...

You will have a lot to sift through to define what you are calling "safe". What one person feels is safe, another may not.

[mamakah]

Originally Posted by shanniesue2

I, personally, worry about the long term health implications of injecting the body with all those chemicals, many of which are know human carcinogens/toxins. So there may be long term health problems that occur due to vax, but nobody knows for sure b/c there has never been any controlled long term study comparing the safety/health of vax vs. non vax.

[EarthRootsStarSoul]

Originally Posted by ammiga

For instance, I think that the human body is stronger when it is allowed to naturally combat most illnesses. So, regardless of a vaccine reaction, the safest way to have a strong immune system is not vaxing.

Is there any science available on that?

[EdnaMarie]

For me, it's not a question of bad reactions vs. good reactions.

It's a question of risk vs. benefit.

Do the risks of getting vaccinated OUTWEIGH the risks of not getting vaccinated?

This goes for each individual, as well as for a community.

For example, while the risks of getting vaccinated may be higher for many individuals, thanks to herd immunity, the risks to the majority of individuals in a group in which many individuals do not vaccinate may be greater, than the risks to the majority of individuals in a group many or most of which do vaccinate.

Ultimately, it's a question of risk vs. benefit, and since that is a question for epidemiologists, not ethicists, I'm not sure it's appropriate for a Classical Argument paper.

Unless, of course, you are comfortable with totally disregarding the possibility that the effect on others of an individual's choices are relevant, and the Kantian imperative (that you must consider what would happen if EVERYONE, as individuals, took your advice--e.g. it might maximize happiness in one instance if you steal something, but if everyone did that, sh*t would fall apart and ultimately we'd all be worse off).

However, I think that assuming that:

(1) We should not consider the possible actions of, or effects on, others;
(2) Risk vs. benefit is a matter of personal opinion

Is really starting off with a buttload of assumptions that nobody, for or against vaccinations, should ever make.

In other words, thesis too broad. LOL! You will have to narrow it down.

[EdnaMarie]

Oh, and if it's a question of how bad the reactions are, then it's a scientific paper, not a classical argument one.

[EarthRootsStarSoul]

So a classical argument has to have an ethics claim?

I could totally change my topic.

I am attracted to science, being a biochemistry major. LOL

[EdnaMarie]

No, it just has to be in the humanities... I do not think it would fit a science paper. I think that since ultimately it's a decision about a child's health, it will be hard to avoid ethics, and that vaccines and risk-benefit is a bio-ethics topic. I suppose you could write a paper on the aesthetic properties of vaccine refusal, but to me, somehow, that doesn't really fit. LOL!

[EdnaMarie]

Or, you could take an anthropological tack and discuss the relative merits of community-based decisions vs. individual-based decision making processes, who has ownership over those processes, and which is better, or through which paradigm we need to understand vaccine refusal... or, for example, the role of the popular VPD image in vaccine promotion media, and whether or how it is misleading. That could be a matter of aesthetics and politics, I suppose.

Or a kind of political paper in which the rights of the individual vs. the rights of the group are discussed, or an anthropological paper that discusses the effect of life span and relative safety on risk-benefit decisions (though that might be more sociology... not sure sociology fits into the classical argument paradigm, either).

[HappyMommy2]

Search this forum for "paper" or something similar.... there have been a few threads on this topic. Seeing what others wrote about might help you find a tighter focus for your paper.

Good luck!

[EarthRootsStarSoul]

Individual vs. community decisions - I like that, it is arguable.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by EarthRootsStarSoul

Is there any science available on that?

Well, you could look at how natural immunity to most diseases is lifelong. Or how it is more effective than vaccine induced. Or how the immune system needs to workout to be stronger. I guess it depends on what you are referring to when you ask. All of these issues are complex with countless ways to approach questioning them.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie

For me, it's not a question of bad reactions vs. good reactions.

It's a question of risk vs. benefit.

Do the risks of getting vaccinated OUTWEIGH the risks of not getting vaccinated?

This goes for each individual, as well as for a community.

For example, while the risks of getting vaccinated may be higher for many individuals, thanks to herd immunity, the risks to the majority of individuals in a group in which many individuals do not vaccinate may be greater, than the risks to the majority of individuals in a group many or most of which do vaccinate.

Ultimately, it's a question of risk vs. benefit, and since that is a question for epidemiologists, not ethicists, I'm not sure it's appropriate for a Classical Argument paper.

Unless, of course, you are comfortable with totally disregarding the possibility that the effect on others of an individual's choices are relevant, and the Kantian imperative (that you must consider what would happen if EVERYONE, as individuals, took your advice--e.g. it might maximize happiness in one instance if you steal something, but if everyone did that, sh*t would fall apart and ultimately we'd all be worse off).

However, I think that assuming that:

(1) We should not consider the possible actions of, or effects on, others;
(2) Risk vs. benefit is a matter of personal opinion

Is really starting off with a buttload of assumptions that nobody, for or against vaccinations, should ever make.

In other words, thesis too broad. LOL! You will have to narrow it down.

Another approach that I've recently seen discussed on this board is weighing the risks of vaccinating with the risks of the disease. It's not how the issue has typically been weighed, but it really makes a lot of sense and is worth exploring.