Mandatory Vaccination Thesis and Annotated Bibliography

Thesis statement: Mandatory vaccinations should not be contended because of aspects including public health, ethical aspects, and cost-benefit profile, despite the impacts on human rights.

Part 1: Annotation

Bardosh, K., De Figueiredo, A., Gur-Arie, R., Jamrozik, E., Doidge, J., Lemmens, T., Keshavjee, S., Graham, J. E., & Baral, S. (2022). The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports, and restrictions may cause more harm than good. BMJ Global Health, 7(5), e008684. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008684

The authors, a team of faculty members at several universities, including the University of Washington, and researchers present several hypotheses on the counterproductive effects mandatory vaccination has on society and public health. They analyze their hypotheses using a conceptual framework consisting of aspects such as politics, public health ethics, social well-being, and psychology. Basing their work on other preexisting arguments, they added to them and completed an analysis. The result of their analysis proved the negative impacts of mandatory vaccines, which include infringing on human rights and political polarization. Using real-life cases of the counterproductive effects of mandatory vaccination, such as Novak Djokovic, the tennis player, the authors emphasize their position. In contrast, the study cited below by Cheng shows the two sides of mandatory vaccination.

Cheng, F. K. (2022). Debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 21, 100761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2022.100761

The author, in her original study that was not funded by any organization, discusses many aspects of vaccination and mandatory vaccines. Before touching on the topic of the effects of mandatory vaccination, the author stipulates the significance of establishing vaccine efficiency and safety. The study is a discussion that argues vaccine efficiency and the positive and negative effects of mandatory vaccination. Some of the positive impacts of mandatory vaccines in the debate of mandatory vaccines include safeguarding public health and providing cost-benefits. In contrast, the other side of the debate consists of aspects such as the breach of human rights. In contrast, the study cited below by Giubilini touches on the ethics of vaccination.

Giubilini, A. (2020). Vaccination ethics. British Medical Bulletin, 137(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa036

The author, from the University of Oxford, uses data from various pieces of literature on the ethics of vaccination, their decisions, and policies to analyze the ethics of vaccination and their impacts on individuals and society. The main hypotheses in this case are that vaccines are effective in preventing diseases but do not prevent the contractability of the diseases decreasing the efficacy of mandatory vaccines in safeguarding public health. Given the wide range of vaccines, there are ethical concerns that influence responsibility to oneself, to society, and to organizations. Herd vaccination for the protection of all raises ethical issues with mandatory vaccination policies. In contrast, the study cited below by Odone et al. indicates that mandatory vaccination policies help safeguard public health.

Odone, A., Dallagiacoma, G., Frascella, B., Signorelli, C., & Leask, J. (2021). Current understandings of the impact of mandatory vaccination laws in Europe. Expert Review of Vaccines, 20(5), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2021.1912603

The authors, from the University of Pavia, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, and the University of Sydney, conduct literature systematic reviews in their study. From the review, they analyze mandatory vaccination impacts on immunizations and diseases preventable by vaccines, with a focus on Europe. Collective public health is safeguarded due to mandatory vaccinations. Further, the study showed an increase in vaccine uptake in society due to mandatory vaccination policies. In their study, they also cover the various barriers that interfere with vaccination, including inadequate campaigns, which will lead to mandatory vaccination policies and laws. In contrast, the study cited below by Williams positions that mandatory vaccination should vary based on the threat posed to individuals in society and not herd vaccination.

Williams, B. M. (2021). The ethics of selective mandatory vaccination for COVID-19. Public Health Ethics, 15(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phab028

The author, researcher Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, theorizes selective mandate is more appropriate in society and local data would support the claim. Local data is sufficient as the selective mandate would be based on age, which will determine the individuals at a greater health risk. The author argues that selective mandate presents a greater cost-benefit profile as those most at risk would receive the vaccination while those at lower risk would not have to receive the vaccination. As a result, public health would be safeguarded with a decrease in fatality cases. However, a selective mandate would reduce mandatory vaccination efficiency. Consistently, the debate on mandatory vaccination persists especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic.

Part 2: Source Evaluation

Bardosh, K., De Figueiredo, A., Gur-Arie, R., Jamrozik, E., Doidge, J., Lemmens, T., Keshavjee, S., Graham, J. E., & Baral, S. (2022). The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good. BMJ Global Health, 7(5), e008684. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008684

2a. This article was currently published in 2022, making it a current source.

2b. This source is credible, reliable, and authoritative. It is a scholarly source with authors who are knowledgeable in their fields, with reference to their affiliations. The source is also published in a peer-reviewed journal.

2c. This source discusses the countereffects of mandatory vaccination and will therefore be significant in the counterargument.

2d. This source is not popular but is scholarly.

Cheng, F. K. (2022). Debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 21, 100761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2022.100761

2a. This article was currently published in 2022, making it a current source.

2b. The source is credible, reliable, and authoritative. It is a scholarly source with its publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

2c. This source discusses both sides of the mandatory vaccination debate and will be significant in supporting the argument.

2d. This source is not popular but is a scholarly source.

Giubilini, A. (2020). Vaccination ethics. British Medical Bulletin, 137(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa036

2a. This article was currently published in 2020, which is less than five years ago.

2b. This source is credible, reliable, and authoritative. It is a scholarly source with an author who is knowledgeable in their fields, with reference to their affiliations.

2c. This source discusses the ethical concerns of vaccination and will therefore be significant in supporting the argument.

2d. This source is not popular but is a scholarly source.

2a. This article was currently published in 2021, making it a current source.

2b. This source is credible, reliable, and authoritative. It is a scholarly source with authors who are experts in their fields, with reference to the source being published in a peer-reviewed journal.

2c. This source discusses the efficiency of mandatory vaccinations and will therefore be significant in supporting the argument.

2d. This source is not popular but is scholarly.

Williams, B. M. (2021). The ethics of selective mandatory vaccination for COVID-19. Public Health Ethics, 15(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phab028

2a. This article was currently published in 2021, which is less than five years ago.

2b. This source is credible, reliable, and authoritative. It is a scholarly source with an author who is knowledgeable in the field, with reference to the source being published in a peer-reviewed journal.

2c. This source discusses the option of selective mandate over mandatory vaccination and will therefore be significant in the counterargument.

2d. This source is not popular but is a scholarly source.

References

Cheng, F. K. (2022). Debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 21, 100761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2022.100761

Giubilini, A. (2020). Vaccination ethics. British Medical Bulletin, 137(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa036

Williams, B. M. (2021). The ethics of selective mandatory vaccination for COVID-19. Public Health Ethics, 15(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question

You have arrived at the third part of the Course Project. By this week, you should have collected the sources that you need to support, with relevant evidence, the position you have taken on the issue you chose, and the three aspects of the issue you will write about. This week you will submit a thesis statement and an annotated bibliography of at least five sources that you will use in your paper.

Mandatory Vaccination Thesis and Annotated Bibliography

Here is a brief breakdown of the project so that you can plan your time in the course:

Week Task
Week 1 Topic Selection
Week 3 Issue Review (both sides)
Week 5 Thesis & Annotated Bibliography (both sides)
Week 7 Argumentative Paper
Instructions
This week, submit the following:

A thesis statement stating your opinion/conclusion on the issue, the supporting points you will offer, and at least one relevant opposing view you will address.
An annotated bibliography with an evaluation of at least five (5) sources you intend to use in your final paper to support your claim.
These are sources that provide evidence to support that your claim should be accepted by the reader.
Scholarly sources are preferred and should be used where available; due to the nature of some of the topics, authoritative articles in very high-quality substantive journals may also be acceptable.
Use the Source Evaluation Worksheet to determine the following:

If your source is current
If it is not current, explain why you think it is acceptable.
If your source is credible, reliable, and authoritative
How well your source supports your thesis
If the annotation does not make this obvious, explain to your instructor how you will use it.
If your support is popular
If it is, explain to your instructor why you think it is acceptable.
Prepare a citation, annotation, and evaluation for each source.

Mandatory Vaccination Thesis and Annotated Bibliography