Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood   diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their   children?

　　Model Answer 1:

　　Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents   immunise their children. However, I feel the question is not whether they should   immunise but whether, as members of society, they have the right not to.

　　Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing   the incidence of fatal childhood diseases. As a result of the widespread   practice of immunising young children in our society, many lives have been saved   and the diseases have been reduced to almost zero.

　　In previous centuries children died from ordinary illnesses such as   influenza and tuberculosis and because few people had immunity, the diseases   spread easily. Diseases such as dysentery were the result of poor hygiene but   these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good sanitation and clean   water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now   because dysentery has been wiped out.

　　Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eradicated   through national immunisation programmes. In consequence, children not immunised   are far less at risk in this disease-free society than they would otherwise be.   Parents choosing not to immunise are relying on the fact that the diseases have   already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing not to immunise   increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases   returning.

　　Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the   individual. A decision not to immunise will have widespread repercussions for   the whole of society and for this reason, I do not believe that individuals have   the right to stand aside. In my opinion immunisation should be obligatory.

　　Model Answer 2:

　　The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children   against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical   question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of   food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical   'treatment' be any different?

　　Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall   statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes which fail to take into   consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against   diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information   is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can sometimes result   in stunted growth or even death.

　　The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural   immunity through contact with that disease. So when children are given   artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society which is entirely dependent   on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease,   the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.

　　In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members   of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this   potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on   religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.

　　For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not   be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or   not to participate.