This research question interests me because it aims to understand the motives of the individuals who are skeptical about the nature of a well established and needed medicine. This question affects me as a member of a community and as someone who values the status of public health and safety. Understanding the underlying motivations by individuals who decide to skip vaccines for both themselves and their children will help to decrease the amount of non-compliance as well as understand skepticism of different medications so that the public can be educated in a way that alleviates that skepticism. In my personal experience I have seen general disagreement between friends and family members regarding parental rights over their children and the type of medical treatment they receive, with some arguing that the government should be able to mandate certain types of medicines, while others argue that complete parental oversight should be enforced when dealing with what enters their children's body. However, despite there being a discord between the two different mindsets revolving around vaccines and how they are distributed, there is an evident need for mandatory vaccinations regardless of personal or religious beliefs in order to promote herd immunization and lower the transmission risk to individuals who are not able to receive vaccinations due to health complications. My authority to write on this subject comes from being well researched, but does not extend beyond that.


Central Claim: Parents should not be able to skip vaccines for their children due to ethical (but not legal) obligation to serve the greater community, rather than bestowing their beliefs upon children who do not have a choice.

Interests/Stakes: The promotion of nationwide acceptance of the belief that healthiness provides protection against diseases through the Anti-Vaccination League of America, the legal and ethical aspects of vaccination advocacy, and the right for parents to skip vaccines for their children.

Credibility/Bias: This article is argumentative. It brings forth the argument that parents should not be able to skip vaccinations. The bias is apparent in the language the author uses. The author is affiliated with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and credible sources are cited throughout the article. 


Central Claim: Through educating parents on the risks and benefits of vaccinating children, a dialogue can be opened about the nature of parental rights without jeopardizing autonomy in the process. The authors go for a more subtle argument claiming that there is a way to reduce non-compliance not by alienating the opposition, but instead having their trusted Health Care Workers do the educating for them.

Interests/Stakes: The promotion of parental rights in relation to vaccinations in a way that minimizes the amount of non compliance while maintaining the herd immunization to diseases that has been steadily increasing in size as more people are vaccinated. 

Credibility/Bias: This article is informative. Rather than choosing 'pro vaccination' or 'anti vaccination', the article goes in depth about the motivations behind the anti-vaccination movement and highlights the importance of communication between Health Care providers and the public such that individuals are able to make informed decisions about their own health. Writers have strong background in medical sciences. Reliable sources cited throughout. 


Central Claim: Alienating anti-vaccination parents by labeling them as bigoted, incoherent ect. will not increase the amount of parental compliance. Instead parents should be encouraged to ask questions and be skeptical of the types of medicines that are entering their children's body so that it keeps the science in check and parents can feel more comfortable about what their children are going through.

Interest/Stakes: The labeling of a parent who asks questions about vaccines as being an "anti-vaxxer", and the people who label them "Vaccine Zealots". Overall this article calls into question the nature of pointing fingers and labeling individuals based upon their beliefs, and recognizing that siding with either extreme does not benefit the community and its health.

Credibility/Bias: There is bias prevalent throughout the article. She casts her acquaintance Mark Largent and his (positive) views on vaccine skepticism in a good light throughout, while labeling David Gorski - a professor at Wayne State University who spoke out against Largent's views  --  unsympathetic. Alice Dreger has a background in science and medicine and has published numerous works on the topic, making her a credible source.

My research question addresses the various criticisms and support that anti-vaccination proponents have and calls into question why the movement began in the first place. Understanding these two concepts will allow the development of an argument based upon the external views of the movement, while attacking the movements source and discrediting it, proving why the distribution of vaccines for various diseases should be mandatory. Two of my sources are in agreement about how making vaccines subject to patient and parent questioning will actually reduce the overall skepticism of the practice. This has altered my opinion on the motivations behind "Anti-vaxxers", I now view them as doubtful instead of bigoted (doubt to me is a more relatable). Although my opinion of those that are not in favor of mandatory vaccination has changed, my opinion of the subject matter and the argument itself has not changed. 
