Approximately, 1 in 10 children are not protected against infectious diseases through vaccinations (Daley and Glanz, 2011). This research question interests me since I am a pre-med student. My goal is to become a pediatric doctor; therefore, the conversation about vaccinating children with parents is inevitable. This stands as a difficult conversation to bear because parents are apprehensive towards vaccinations due to previous research that stated child vaccinations cause autism. Although this evidence has been disproved, I want to explore a little deeper into the conversation to see if vaccinations truly prevent children from developing infectious diseases. 

This research question does not necessarily affect my values, but I believe it will be beneficial for all children to receive routine vaccinations in order to prevent other children from being infected. Children are around each other all the time, whether it be in the sandbox or in the lunchroom, which makes them susceptible to contagious infection. If all of them are vaccinated, horrible diseases like whooping cough, chicken pox, and pneumonia could be prevented. The only personal experience I hold regarding this topic is receiving vaccinations myself. I received all of my routine vaccinations and as of late I have not had any of the vaccine-preventable diseases; in comparison, one of my friends who has not received her vaccines gets sick frequently. I am not qualified to write about this topic since I am neither a doctor nor a researcher, but since I am a pre-med student, I read a substantial amount of information on not only this topic, but on the health of children. 

The first source "Straight Talk about Vaccination" by Matthew F. Daley and Jason M. Glanz, serves as an argumentative article, which focuses on child vaccination and how parents should be educated on vaccinations before their child is born. The article begins with a few startling statistics about unvaccinated children. Parents are less inclined to vaccinate their children due to the theory that vaccines cause autism and other disorders in children. The choice to vaccinate a child begins as early as two months after birth; roughly six shots get scheduled for the infant. However, the conversation about vaccinating a child should begin earlier, even before pregnancy, to ensure that the parent receives the proper information to make the decision. Due to parents' fears of vaccinations doing more harm than good, children who fail to receive a vaccination are more likely to become infected with illnesses such as chicken pox and pneumonia. These illnesses can even trigger other illnesses and symptoms that could have been prevented by just getting a vaccine. In order to ensure the safety of vaccines, the U.S. has a federally funded system that monitors vaccines. The idea that vaccines caused autism came from a now retracted article by Andrew J. Wakefield. Despite the refutation of the theory by countless research, parents still are apprehensive to vaccinate their children. The positive message of vaccinations needs to be spread to parents early on before it negatively affects children.

The major interests in the article would be parents, children, and doctors. As a whole, parents do not want to hurt their children. If they allowed doctors to inject their children and later there is life long negative impact, they would not be able to forgive themselves. The doctors however, want to not only protect children, but also benefit from the monetary gains of giving a vaccination. Matthew F. Daley is a pediatrician and a researcher, while Jason M. Glanz contributes as an epidemiologist. Their combined credentials are important to this topic because together they posses a background that focuses on children, infectious diseases, and research, the basis of this argument. This article is ethical because it acknowledges both sides of the argument. Although there is bias towards pro-vaccination, the authors recognize the concerns that parents hold. As opposed to criticizing their views, the authors try to find ways to put parents at ease on the topic.

The next source is an informative article titled "U.S. Vaccination Rate High, but Pockets of Unvaccinated Pose Risk" by Julie Steenhuysen. This article discusses how pockets of unvaccinated kindergarten age children pose a large public health issue. Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases area of the CDC, Dr. Anne Schuchat comments on how communities with unvaccinated children are exposed to outbreaks of disease. In order to be enrolled in school, children must follow the vaccination schedule mandatory in all states; the only way to be exempt from receiving vaccinations is through medical reasons or religious reasons. Vaccination coverage data has become a helpful tool in figuring out what states hold the highest and lowest rates of vaccination. 

The main interests presented in this article are communities and schools. Schools value the importance of health and therefore want to prevent a major outbreak from spreading; communities want to prevent the same thing. There is not a large amount of bias as this is more of an informative rather than argumentative article. The author, Julie Steenhuysen, has been a healthcare correspondent for the past four years. Steenhuysen has an extensive background in medical news coverage.

The final source is an opposing viewpoint essay titled "The Childhood Vaccine Schedule is Unsafe". This essay exposes the potential dangers of injecting babies with multiple vaccinations at one time. The author, Neil Z. Miller, lists and describes the nine ingredients of vaccines; each ingredient contains toxins that are not beneficial to the body. Miller then goes on to explain how the amount of vaccines that babies are injected with during their first months of life is harmful and unnecessary. The majority of the time, babies are injected with this amount of drugs to provide convenience to the parents. Occasionally, children suffer from adverse effects of multiple vaccinations, which result in injury or even death.

The major interests surrounding this article are pharmaceutical companies and children. Pharmaceutical companies want to protect their products and in turn do not want the harmful effects of their products exposed. Children, another interest, are too young to make a decision regarding their bodies; they are injected multiple times with risky ingredients without knowledge. The author, Neil Z. Miller, is a writer of a vaccine manual and a director of the ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute. Miller's entire background focuses on vaccines, making him an extremely credible source due to his wide knowledge on the topic of vaccines. However, the entire essay contains bias. 

This research question is arguable since there are two strong viewpoints on the topic. Both the pro and anti vaccination sides present convincing evidence. The pro-vaccination side urges parents to vaccinate their child in order to protect not only their children, but also the rest of the community against an outbreak of infectious disease. The anti-vaccination side deems that vaccinations do more harm than good and the schedule children receive vaccines is detrimental to their health. The list of ingredients in the opposing viewpoints essay opened my eyes a bit to the other side of this argument. As I continue to study this research question, I would want to see if there is an option to change the schedule of vaccinations to prevent the injection of a large amount of toxins into a baby's bloodstream at one time. 

