DOCSLIB.ORG

UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Misinformation on the Internet?: A Study of Vaccine Safety Beliefs Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/57z2v8j3 Author Doty, Colin Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Misinformation on the Internet?: A Study of Vaccine Safety Beliefs A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Information Studies by Colin C. Doty 2015 © Copyright by Colin C. Doty 2015 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Misinformation on the Internet?: A Study of Vaccine Safety Beliefs by Colin C. Doty Doctor of Philosophy in Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles, 2015 Professor Leah A. Lievrouw, Chair Concerns about misinformation on the Internet usually focus on the amount of misinformation available, the ease of retrieving it, the speed with which it spreads, or the lack of editorial oversight. Yet none of these would be cause for concern if no one was misinformed. Indeed, what constitutes misinformation is often determined by who believes it. Hence the most important consideration may be a focus on why people believe. To explore this, this study reports results from a qualitative content analysis of online information about vaccine safety— with a particular focus on user comments—supplemented by exploratory interviews. The study examines how people on all sides of the debate use evidence to support their beliefs about vaccine safety. It also reflects upon the relationship between the Internet and those beliefs. The most common beliefs about vaccine safety are beliefs about toxicity, beliefs about the cumulative effects of vaccines, beliefs about the premise of immunization, and beliefs about the compromised integrity of the medical system. Contrary to popular conceptions, these beliefs do not divide easily into binaries of pro-vaccination and anti-vaccination. Rather, it is as if ii available beliefs were arrayed in a buffet from which each believer chooses an individualized meal. The selection of beliefs is limited, as the same beliefs recur over and over in the data, yet each believer combines the limited selections into diverse belief profiles. People justify these beliefs using risk-benefit calculations based in reason and authority, both of which are heavily influenced by personal experience, a kind of evidence that may be more prominent on the Internet than elsewhere. These basic tactics are employed in complex patterns that vary across beliefs, believers and situations. Perhaps surprisingly, while each person uses the tactics in different ways and to different degrees, the same basic tactics are used on all sides of the vaccine safety debate, suggesting a more complicated belief landscape than the popular conception. In turn, this suggests that it is not merely that misinformation affects what we believe, but also that what we believe appears to affect how we understand misinformation. iii The dissertation of Colin C. Doty is approved. Jonathan Furner Christopher M. Kelty Charles Goodwin Leah A. Lievrouw, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2015 iv Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my father, who died during the second year of my doctoral coursework. After a long career as a business executive, he had semi-retired and was teaching management courses at various colleges. This project is therefore the culmination of a long journey toward his legacy as Professor Doty. v Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Problem and General Context ..................................................................................................... 1 The Case of Vaccine Safety Beliefs ............................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 8 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 8 Information and Misinformation ................................................................................................. 8 Belief ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Evidence .................................................................................................................................... 15 Evidence Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 21 Criteria for Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 33 Accuracy......................................................................................................................... 34 Authority. ....................................................................................................................... 38 Credibility....................................................................................................................... 40 Trust. .............................................................................................................................. 43 Authenticity. ................................................................................................................... 46 Vaccine Safety........................................................................................................................... 48 CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 55 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 55 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 55 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 55 Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 55 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 56 Internet Thematic Analysis ....................................................................................................... 57 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 57 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 59 Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 64 Recruitment ........................................................................................................................... 64 Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 66 Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 66 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................ 67 vi CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 69 WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE ABOUT VACCINE SAFETY ......................................................... 69 Beliefs about Toxicity ............................................................................................................... 74 Autism ................................................................................................................................... 78 Beliefs about Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................. 81 Beliefs about the Premise of Immunization .............................................................................. 84 Beliefs about Compromised Integrity ....................................................................................... 92 Beliefs about Civil Society .................................................................................................... 97 A Buffet of Beliefs .................................................................................................................... 99 CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 108 HOW PEOPLE JUSTIFY THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT VACCINE SAFETY ............................ 108 Risk/Benefit ............................................................................................................................. 109 Reason ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Epistemic Institutions: Law's Encounters with Knowledge
    Epistemic Institutions: Law’s Encounters with Knowledge By James Dillon A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and Social Policy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Malcolm M. Feeley, Chair Professor Andrea L. Roth Professor Amy E. Lerman Summer 2018 Abstract Epistemic Institutions: Law’s Encounters with Knowledge by James Dillon Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and Social Policy University of California, Berkeley Professor Malcolm M. Feeley, Chair This dissertation examines the construction of “legal knowledge”—the finding of facts to which legal norms are to be applied in the adjudication of disputes—from an interdisciplinary perspective emphasizing epistemology, the sociology of scientific knowledge, political theory, and cognitive psychology. While the construction of legal knowledge is an essential component of the legal process and the principal task of American trial courts, the process remains fraught with practical and theoretical challenges that complicate simplistic conceptions of factfinding as a transparent process of veridical reconstruction of past events. Legal epistemic agents, like all epistemic agents, lack direct access to past events; thus, legal knowledge cannot perceive the past directly, but can only interpret it. The process of legal factfinding inevitably creates distortions and is subject to systemic biases in its effort to create a veridical construct of past events giving rise to a legal dispute. Although this dissertation cannot address every under-explored problem concerning the legitimacy and reliability of legal knowledge construction, its principal contribution is to bring interdisciplinary insights to bear on several of the more salient unresolved problems around the law’s engagement with knowledge claims and the construction of legal knowledge through the adversarial process.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansans for Health Freedom Program
    T H I S B O O K B E L O N G S T O : I F F O U N D , C O N T A C T I N F O . WELCOME! Welcome to the Freedom Revival in the Heartland event of 2020. We are so excited to have you here! I can assure you that getting this event off in only three weeks is a testament to the power of God working in a million big and little ways. It is also a testament to the talent, passion, and inspiration of some very dedicated and hard-working people. Today, we unite with all who are awake to the rising trend of medical tyranny. We join with those who have been silenced. We grieve with those who have lost so much. Finally, we rejoice that many more are waking up to the corruption of our health agencies and the failure of the pharma-medical paradigm every day. Kansans for Health Freedom is a young organization which came together in June of 2019. Our goal is to promote and uphold our constitutional freedoms for vaccine and medical choice and true informed consent. We want to see the needless injuries and deaths from vaccines eliminated. We want to hear the unheard and be a voice for the silenced. We want to educate the public about the very real risks of vaccines so that no more will be harmed. Our wonderful team has had an amazing year with many great learning experiences. Some of you have been a part of that, and we thank you! If you are not a member of KSHF but you believe the government and its agencies should not be the determiners for your family’s health choices, please join us.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Autism
    The Politics of Autism The Politics of Autism Bryna Siegel, PhD 1 1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Names: Siegel, Bryna, author. Title: The politics of autism / by Bryna Siegel. Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017053462 | ISBN 9780199360994 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Autism—Epidemiology—Government policy—United States. | Autism—Diagnosis—United States. | Autistic people—Education—United States. Classification: LCC RC553.A88 S536 2018 | DDC 362.196/8588200973—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017053462 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America For David CONTENTS Preface ix Introduction xi 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Dangerous Vaccines - All the Proof in the World
    DANGEROUS VACCINES - ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD Chapters: 1. No. 1 Cause Of All Health Problems - Our Health Care System 2. A Pharmacist Questions Vaccines 3. The Myth of Polio & Smallpox Eradication 4. The Myth People Are Living Longer 5. AIDS Drugs Do More Harm Than Good 6. Babies Dying In Vaccine Trials 7. How the MMR and Measles Vaccines Endanger Your Child's Health 8. Doctor Calls Chicken Pox Vaccine Deaths "Reassuring" 9. Deaths & Adverse Reactions from Vaccines 10. Reports on Vaccine Dangers 11. Government Payouts to Vaccine Damaged Victims 12. Doctors Believe Their Technology Is Superior to Mother Nature's 13. The Tamiflu Scam / Dr. Mercola's Total Health Program 14. Scary Medicine: Exposing The Dark Side of Vaccines 15. Extensive Research on Vaccines Proves the Dangers 16. Biased Reporting: A Vaccination Case Study 17. Mercury Toxicity and Autism 18. Horrors of Vaccination Exposed and Illustrated 19. Quotes On Vaccines By Health Care Experts 20. Vaccination Statistics 21. What's Really In Vaccines? Proof of MSG, Formaldehyde, Aluminum and Mercury 22. Additional Vaccine Facts 23. The Flu - Facts Show Different Picture 24. Vaccine Blamed for the Worst Flu Season in Four Years 25. Why Vaccinations Harm Children: Health Experts Sound Off 26. The Flawed Theory Behind Vaccinations & Why MMR Jabs Are Dangerous 27. Waking Up To Vaccine Dangers 28. Pet Vaccine Myths Debunked 29. Questions To Ask Your Physician or Vaccine Advocate 30. Universal Immunization — Medical Miracle or Masterful Mirage 31. Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety 32. The Death of Medicine: An Open Letter to Allopathic Physicians 33.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Markets for Vaccines
    U.S. Markets for Vaccines U.S. Markets for Vaccines Characteristics, Case Studies, and Controversies Ernst R. Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Berndt, Ernst R. U.S. markets for vaccines : characteristics, case studies, and controversies / Ernst R. Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-4280-9 ISBN-10: 0-8447-4280-5 1. Vaccines industry—United States. 2. Market surveys—United States. I. Denoncourt, Rena N. II. Warner, Anjli C. III. Title. [DNLM: 1. Vaccines—economics—United States. 2. Drug Discovery—economics—United States. 3. Drug Industry—economics—United States. QW 805 B524u 2009] HD9675.V333.U6 2009 381'.456153720973—dc22 2009006713 13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 © 2009 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wash- ington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or repro- duced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not neces- sarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Vaccines
    The Truth about Vaccines What you need to know in order to save your child? By Dr. Heather Rice Dr. Heather Rice My name is Dr. Heather Rice. I am many things to many people; however, the most meaningful titles I hold are that of mom and Chiropractor. Being a Doctor of Chiropractic is my passion. My practice members are not “patients” to me they are friends, neighbors, and family. I took over Network Chiropractic of Vermont in 1997 but I have over 25+ years of experience in the Chiropractic profession. I wanted to Help people Feel Better My connection with Chiropractic started at a young age as both of my parents are Chiropractors. I have a memory of my father adjusting me when I was 13 years old. I remember because I had strep throat and each adjustment made me feel better. That is when the seed was planted - I too wanted to help people feel better. Chiropractic Education & Training Two of my brothers and I went to school to be Chiropractors. I graduated 4th in my class from Palmer College of Chiropractic in 1983 and since then I have become one of the few doctors in Vermont to achieve the highest level of certification in Network Spinal Analysis (NSA). NSA is known for its gentle adjustments and profound changes in the quality of life. I also am certified as a FLOWTRITION practitioner and can also teach the approach. At Network Chiropractic of Vermont I have traveled the world (especially China & South Korea) practicing Chiropractic but Vermont is my home.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rhetorical Analysis of Three Explanations For
    AUTISM AND THE PERPETUAL PUZZLE: A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THREE EXPLANATIONS FOR AUTISM A Dissertation by DENISE MARIE JODLOWSKI Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2009 Major Subject: Communication AUTISM AND THE PERPETUAL PUZZLE: A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THREE EXPLANATIONS FOR AUTISM A Dissertation by DENISE MARIE JODLOWSKI Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Co-Chairs of Committee, James A. Aune Barbara F. Sharf Committee Members, Katherine I. Miller Cynthia Riccio Head of Department, Richard L. Street, Jr. May 2009 Major Subject: Communication iii ABSTRACT Autism and the Perpetual Puzzle: A Rhetorical Analysis of Three Explanations for Autism. (May 2009) Denise Marie Jodlowski, B.A. University of Iowa; M.A., Wake Forest University Co-Chairs of Advisory Committee: Dr. James Arnt Aune Dr. Barbara F. Sharf Autism awareness has increased in recent years in part because it is marked by confusion and controversy. The confusion and controversy stem from the fact that there are many beliefs about autism but little agreement. In this dissertation I examined the rhetoric produced by three primary groups—professional autism experts, caregivers to children with autism and mainstream media. In particular, I studied how each group explains autism. Explanations are vehicles for persuasion; they advance particular viewpoints about an illness. I conducted a rhetorical analysis of the three discourses produced by these groups, highlighting the most cohesive themes to emerge from the discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Natural and Common Law Tribunal for Public
    1 NATURAL AND COMMON LAW TRIBUNAL FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND JUSTICE Indictment, 29 November year 2020 Genocidal Technologies-Coronavirus Genocide & Crimes Against Humanity in violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Code/Rome Statute Use this Sample Request for Writ to Stop: Genocidal Technologies-Coronavirus Genocide in your community, City, Region, and Nation through: • Deployment of 5G/AI wifi & Genocidal Technologies Coronavirus & COVID 19 Vaccinations • Social Control Measures: Coronavirus • Lockdowns, Economic Closures, Masking & Social Distancing Constitute Genocide & Crimes Against Humanity under the International Criminal Code/the Rome Statute EVIDENCE SUBMISSION Tribunal Judge submitting this Evidence & Contact info: Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, CERT Public Health Documents/Evidence & Relevance SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIBUNAL HEARING ON NOVEMBER 15, 2020 Evidence of Irreparable Harm to all Human Beings similarly situated, in violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Code I. 5G/AI Coronavirus Genocide – Evidence of Irreparable Harm to all human beings similarly situated, in violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Code II. AI/Coronavirus/COVID-19 Vaccinations-related Genocide, which must be stopped. – Evidence of Irreparable Harm to all human beings similarly situated, in violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Code III. 5G AI/Coronavirus Social Control Methods Genocide – Evidence of Irreparable Harm to all human beings similarly situated, in violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Code 2 Therefore, the evidence submitted above demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the 5G AI/Coronavirus Social Control Methods Genocide of Defendants named and unnamed is causing imminent and Irreparable Harm to all human beings similarly situated, in violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Code and must be stopped by this Court with a Writ of Emergency Injunction.
    [Show full text]
  • Singh Wfu 0248M 11022.Pdf
    NEUTRALIZING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND PATIENTS TO INCREASE VACCINATION RATES BY REVA SINGH A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Bioethics May, 2017 Winston-Salem, North Carolina Copyright Reva Singh 2017 Approved By: Ana S. Iltis, Ph.D., Advisor Christine N. Coughlin, J.D., Chair Richard Robeson ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my mother and father for providing me every opportunity and their endless generosity. I could not be where I am today without you. Thank you to my thesis committee: Ana Iltis, Christine Coughlin, and Richard Robeson, for your guidance and support not only throughout this process, but throughout my pursuit of higher education. Thank you to Bradford and Rummy for listening to me talk about vaccines for at least 18 months. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations and Tables………………………………………………...…………iv List of Abbreviations………………………………………………..………………….…v Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...….…...vi Introduction………………………………………............……………..…......…………vii CHAPTER ONE: LAW& POLICY..….......……………………....…………....………...1 CHAPTER TWO: MEDIA PORTRAYALS OF THE AUTISM SCARE & POLITICIZATION OF VACCINES…………………………………………………….20 CHAPTER THREE: THE PARAMETERS OF INFORMED CONSENT AND HOW THEY ARE NOT FULFILLED IN PHYSICIAN-PATIENT CONVERSATIONS ON VACCINES ……...……………………………….........................................................61 CHAPTER FOUR: THE RESPONSIBILITY TO EMPOWER
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 109 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 151 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2005 No. 85 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. The SPEAKER. State your inquiry. ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have no- The SPEAKER. The Chair will recog- Coughlin, offered the following prayer: ticed at least one occasion when a nize up to 10 Members on each side for Eternal God, guide and protector of Member announced he was opposed to a 1-minute speeches. Your people, grant us unfailing respect measure when he sought to offer a mo- for Your holy name and for Your holy f tion to recommit but then voted ‘‘yes’’ presence in the people we meet today. GITMO on passage of the bill. Consecrate the work of this Congress. (Ms. PRYCE of Ohio asked and was Raise up statesmen here and abroad Mr. Speaker, is that regular order? given permission to address the House who will recognize Your holy will in The SPEAKER. As Members are for 1 minute and to revise and extend the waves of history and the will of the aware, the first element of priority in her remarks.) people whom they serve. recognition for a motion to recommit Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I May the peace and prosperity of this is whether the Member seeking rec- rise today on behalf of our military. It Nation be secured, while our attention ognition is opposed to the main meas- has been 4 years since terrorists killed is expanded and genuine concern for ure.
    [Show full text]
  • Vaccine Rejection and Hesitancy: a Review and Call to Action Tara C
    Open Forum Infectious Diseases REVIEW ARTICLE Vaccine Rejection and Hesitancy: A Review and Call to Action Tara C. Smith1 1College of Public Health, Kent State University, Ohio Vaccine refusal has been a recurring story in the media for well over a decade. Although there is scant evidence that refusal is genu- inely increasing in the population, multiple studies have demonstrated concerning patterns of decline of confidence in vaccines, the medical professionals who administer vaccines, and the scientists who study and develop vaccines. As specialists in microbiology, immunology, and infectious diseases, scientists are content experts but often lack the direct contact with individuals considering vaccination for themselves or their children that healthcare professionals have daily. This review examines the arguments and play- ers in the US antivaccination scene, and it discusses ways that experts in infectious diseases can become more active in promoting vaccination to friends, family, and the public at large. Keywords: antivaccination; internet; misinformation; vaccine denial; vaccine hesitancy. Since the late 1990s, concern has grown regarding a resurgence represented. As such, antivaccine activists have been able to of the “anti-vaccine movement,” a loosely defined group of indi- describe these diseases as harmless consequences of childhood, viduals who sow doubt about the effectiveness and safety of and vaccines are presented as the danger rather than the dis- vaccines. Although the most current iteration of this scare can ease. Although public health and medical practitioners have be traced to the publication of Andrew Wakefield’s (since-re- been concerned about increasing antivaccine sentiment, pro- tracted) paper linking the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vac- grams that have been implemented to change minds and atti- cine to autism in 1998, anti-immunization sentiment in reality tudes have been largely ineffective [8, 9].
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Vaccination in the United States: Ethics, Regulations, and Recommendations
    COMPULSORY VACCINATION IN THE UNITED STATES: ETHICS, REGULATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ariella R. Noorily TC 660H Plan II Honors Program The University of Texas at Austin May 11, 2017 Jason Upton, Ph.D. Department of Molecular Biosciences Supervising Professor Janet Davis, Ph.D. Department of American Studies, Plan II Honors Program Second Reader ABSTRACT Author: Ariella R. Noorily Title: Compulsory Vaccination in the United States: Ethics, Regulations, and Recommendations Supervising Professor: Jason Upton, Ph.D. Infectious diseases such as poliomyelitis, smallpox, and Hib used to pose a significant threat to the population of the United States. Thanks to the advent of vaccinations, many of these dangerous diseases have been almost or completely eradicated in America and around the world. However, as the rates of infectious diseases decrease, anti-vaccine sentiment becomes more popular. There are many reasons for parents to refuse to vaccinate their children, but vaccine hesitancy of any kind jeopardizes America’s maintenance of immunity and health. Therefore, although personal autonomy is an important principle in a democratic society, the United States government has an ethical duty to enact vaccination policy in order to prevent outbreaks of disease and to ensure the safety of the population at large. This thesis will explore the many ethical issues associated with a compulsory vaccination program in the United States. Based on research about the science of vaccines, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, current United States policy, and utilitarian philosophy, a set of guidelines for an effective vaccine mandate will be proposed. These guidelines consist of five main criteria, all of which vaccination policy must follow in order to be considered ethical.
    [Show full text]