The necessity of childhood vaccinations has long provoked conflicting reactions and raised many moral and ethical questions among the public. For many years, opposing views on this subject have clashed with each other (Shields et al., 2020). However, moral guidance on this issue can be achieved through the application of Immanuel Kant’s ethics with a focus on his principle of the categorical imperative and principle of humanity that can be used to explain the childhood vaccination problem.
The categorical imperative is the main and key principle of Kant’s ethics. This rule emphasizes that people should act as they would want their actions to be accepted as universal rules and processes. It also assumes that people should act so that their actions bring more good than evil to society (Lowth, 2020). This would be the goal of people’s actions if they acted according to Kant’s categorical imperative (Gragl, 2022). Thus, the application of Kant’s theory to the moral issue of childhood vaccination implies that people should act so that their actions can bring more benefit than harm to society in general.
Applying Kant’s principle to the issue, one should state that childhood vaccination can protect children from many diseases, so their use can be beneficial for them and their peers, preventing the spread of diseases. Therefore, it is ethical to vaccinate children, as this act falls under the categorical imperative of Kant. There are numerous scientific data confirming the advantages of childhood vaccinations (Shields et al., 2020). For example, researchers claim that vaccination prevents numerous diseases, such as measles, mumps, rubella, and others (Lowth, 2020). As a result of these vaccinations, children are less exposed to the risk of serious infections. Thus, the use of vaccines brings more good, which is an important aspect of Kant’s categorical imperative. Thus, according to Kant’s categorical imperative, it is ethical to vaccinate children as this step can contribute to preventing the spread of many diseases and protect children from severe health outcomes.
Kant’s principle of humanity states that every person should be regarded as an end in themselves and not merely as a means to achieve someone else’s goals. In other words, every person should be respected and valued simply because they exist and have the right to their autonomy as the freedom to choose and act in accordance with their beliefs and desires (Gragl, 2022). As a result of discussing the issue of vaccination, parents can take into account the wishes of their children. Moreover, parents who are against vaccination should respect their teenage children’s autonomy and their right to make decisions in accordance with their beliefs (Shields et al., 2020). If a child wants to get vaccinated in order to decrease risks to their health, the parents should allow them to do so.
Counterarguments from anti-vaxxer parents may be related to concerns about the potential side effects of vaccines or the belief that vaccines are not necessary and harmful. Thus, many parents can reject vaccination for their children if they believe that vaccines are harmful. However, responding to these counterarguments, it is possible to state that a lot of significant research exists on the safety of vaccines (Lowth, 2020). Researchers accentuate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in preventing serious diseases typical of childhood (Shields et al., 2020). It can also be emphasized that vaccination is a social responsibility because vaccines help protect not only an individual but also the entire community from the spread of infections.
Childhood vaccination is an important step for preserving the health and well-being of children. They should have an opportunity to receive necessary vaccines because, for many conditions, it is the only way to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and epidemics. Vaccinations are especially important for supporting the health of young children because their immune system is still immature. Vaccines help protect children from potentially fatal diseases that can harm their health, and they can be very beneficial. For example, vaccines can help prevent the spread of poliomyelitis, which can lead to nerve damage and even death (Shields et al., 2020). Protection against numerous infectious diseases with the help of vaccines should be a priority for all parents, and vaccination should be viewed as the norm for all children.
In conclusion, it can be said that the decision to vaccinate children is a moral and ethical question, and Kant’s categorical imperative and the principle of humanity can be applied to its solution. Thus, childhood vaccinations protect children from many diseases, so their use brings more personal and social good than evil, which fits Kant’s principles. Therefore, referring to moral and ethical principles, it is possible to state that vaccinations for children are ethical. Those parents who are against vaccination should respect their children’s right to choose, allowing them to get vaccinated. The reason is that vaccination is supported not only from the theoretical or ethical perspective but also with reference to scientific evidence, and the social benefit of vaccines is significant.
References
Gragl, P. (2022). Kant and Strasbourg on mandatory vaccinations. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 3(2), 220-262.
Lowth, M. (2020). Can mandatory vaccination be ethically justified? A deontological perspective. King’s Student Law Review, 11, 26-34.
Shields, M. D., Fleming, J. P., & Shields, L. K. (Eds.). (2020). Ethics in child health: A practical workbook. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.