Debating the Mandate on Whether or Not to Vaccinate

 Details, please see the upload files. This paper should be answered all the assignment’s questions. The questions:is there a point where health promotion strategies and policies regarding vaccine programs push the boundaries of ethics? For example, do you feel that Alberta Health pamphlet adequately informs parents of the transmission risks associated with Hepatitis B (i.e., needle-stick injuries in childhood playgrounds vs. sexual intercourse)? Based on the known routes of transmission, is the information presented in such a way that parents can make informed choices regarding immunization for their children? Alternatively, do you feel the information in the pamphlet misdirects public perception about the true risks of disease transmission (i.e., what is the Hep B prevalence of playground-associated needle stick injuries in children)? If so, how could you improve the messaging. Would you make this a mandatory vaccination program? How does this decision fit within your public health philosophy as a normativist (i.e., how would you respect the value-based decisions of parents choosing not to vaccinate) or a naturalist (i.e., over-ride personal choices to meet immunization targets)? Are personal values more important in our society than protecting public health [normativist vs naturalist])? Rationalize this in terms of understanding that if vaccine programs aren’t successful, these may represent evolutionary public health disasters waiting to happen (as mentioned by Dr. Andrew Read

#Debating #Mandate #Vaccinate

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!