The controversy on vaccinations is one issue that has been receiving a large amount of attention. There is a large range of information both for and against the administration of vaccines and this paper provides examples of both, along with an article stating the basic facts on vaccinations.  The question I am posing is: should vaccinations be made mandatory? It can be argued that vaccinations can cause complications and side effects as severe as death. However, this paper will be arguing the side that vaccinations have more beneficial effects than not. In support for the argument that vaccinations should be made mandatory, studies on the effects a vaccinated popular has on cancer patients revealed that herd immunity can benefit society as a whole; this, among other statistics, will be used to support my argument.

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 vaccinations being safe and effective. Dr. Suzanne Humphries points out the misleading information about vaccinations being safe for young children. She is very much against injecting dangerous matter, such as aluminum, 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 the concept of vaccine ethnicity, which states that "vaccines are safe and effective". She began looking at the definition of "effective" and discovered that a vaccine is considered "effective" when it produces antibodies. However, her main point is that "effective" does not mean the vaccination will be effective against the virus or illness, putting the idea of vaccinations in question. The third doctor interviewed is Dr. Meryl Nass who believes it is neither safe nor ethical to administer vaccinations because there are too many risks with administering them, such as injecting children with aluminum which is in a vaccination to cause a reaction for antibodies to form, risks such as this are putting girls in danger of death. The complications and dangers from getting the vaccinations are causing death among these girls and there are no reasons why. Until the cause of these deaths is found and it is proven to be unrelated to these vaccinations, they should not be administered. As all three interviews were done with credentialed doctors who have all performed in-depth research in their specific fields, the source does prove credible although there is a strong bias against vaccinations.

Another source that was analyzed was found through PubMed, a respectable source for scientific research, and was published in the US National Library of Medicine and discusses the benefits while recognizing the risks of childhood immunizations. The overall point that the author, Daniel Bronfin, makes 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 author presents his answers by addressing the risks, but also providing facts that prove there are more positives than negatives to getting vaccinated.  Statistics are provided to give further support on Bronfin's opinion that vaccinations are beneficial. There is a clear bias towards vaccination as Bronfin is a pediatric doctor, but that does not make the article any less credible. In fact, it makes the article even more credible due to his firsthand knowledge. 

Furthermore, The New York Times discusses the overview of vaccinations and provides information both supporting and rejecting the idea of vaccinations. There is a plethora of information provided and there is no favored 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 at Harvard Medical School as well as Yale 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 this factual way 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.

Each of the sources represent a perspective on the issue of vaccinations; source one is anti-vaccination, source two is pro-vaccination, and source three is undeclared. Although the articles support different sides, safety of vaccinations was discussed in each. Having sources that represent different perspectives allows me, as a writer, to do in-depth research and provide an educated paper to readers. This, in addition to my drive to become a medical professional, makes me passionate about this topic. Currently I am studying public health, on the pre-med track, hoping to focus on pediatrics in the future. My experience with vaccinations as a child, having received them and their benefits, makes me want to advocate their importance to others. Upon further research of this topic I may adjust my exigence to be more precise in order to focus my paper in a specific direction, such as vaccinations for children at a young age.

