As the world advances with each day, more individuals release their opinions made about social issues. One specific issue that has been receiving a large amount of attention recently is the controversy on vaccination. There is a large range of information both for and against the administration of vaccines and this paper provides example of both, along with an article written with the intent of removing as much bias as possible.  The question I am posing is: Should vaccinations be made mandatory? I will be arguing the side that vaccinations have more beneficial effects than not. I do understand and will acknowledge the fact that vaccinations can cause complications as severe as death. It is important to provide a counterargument in an argumentative paper. Through the use of credible sources and statistics, I will support my argument for vaccinations being made mandatory for administration. 

Three sources have been selected in order to support, refute and remain unbiased on the controversy of vaccinations. The first source is a Health Impact article that interviews three doctors discussing the opposing side of vaccination administration being safe and effective. Dr. Suzanne Humphries points out the misleading information about vaccinations being safe for young children. She is much against injecting such dangerous matter into a child so young and wants to promote the fact that Mother Nature has allowed humans to develop adequate immune systems through healthy mother's breast milk. Supporting Dr. Humphries is Dr. Sherri Tenpenny who researched vaccine ethnicity. She began looking at the definition of "effective" and as she looked further into the research, she discovered there is a jump in believing a vaccine that is effective means it will protect a human from a virus. This is not the case. Her main point is that effective does not mean it will protect from the virus, putting the idea of vaccinations in question. The third doctor interviewed is Dr. Meryl Nass who believes it is not safe or ethical to administer vaccinations as there are too many unanswered risks causing healthy girls to suddenly die. Without the answer to deaths related to vaccinations they should not be administered. As all three interviews were done with credentialed doctors, who have all performed in-depth research, the source does prove credible although there is a strong bias against vaccinations. Another source that was analyzed is published in the US national Library of Medicine and discusses the controversies of childhood immunizations. The overall point that author, Daniel Bronfin, points out is that vaccinations are beneficial to society and have positively reduced mortality and morbidity rates over time. Bronfin focuses on the concerning questions most parents end up asking their pediatricians when it comes to getting their child vaccinated. The article does promote the fact vaccinations are beneficial and safe. Statistics are provided to give further support Bronfin's opinion. There is clear bias in this article but does not make it any less credible. The research done for this article is based off of research published on PubMed, a respectable source for scientific research. Furthermore, The New York Times discusses the overview of vaccinations and provides information supporting and rejecting the idea of vaccinations. There is a plethora of information provided and there is no clear side to the argument. This article is designed to give necessary information to any individual who is trying to decide if they should get vaccinated or not. As this article was reviewed by the editor-in-Chief, Professor of Medicine, and Harvard Medical School graduate Harvey Simon, the source stands as credible. Bias could be an issue as Simon could be influenced by working in a medical profession to promote what most believe is medically correct, which is to get vaccinated, but the facts given are for both sides of the argument. It is safe to say, this article was written in hopes of removing bias from the writing. Each side of the controversy over vaccinations is provided above in order to have ample evidence in my argumentative paper.

By posing a question beginning with the word "should" it alludes to the fact there is more than one side, allowing individuals to choose a side they would like to support. The three sources I have chosen present the options of stances able to be made; for, against, undeclared. Although the articles support different sides, a major point discussed in each was about the safety of vaccinations. The fact there are different perspectives to this one question, it allows me, as a writer, to do in-depth research and provide an educated paper to readers. The sources I have chosen make me want to perform more research to be sure I am supporting the side I believe is truly right. For my 2,500 word paper, I may adjust my exigence to be more specific, allowing me to focus my paper in a specific direction, such as vaccinations for children at a young age.

