The Measles Vaccination and How It Has Resulted in a Social Plague

Measles vaccination, a highly controversial topic in America today, has put the concerns of the government and its people on an all time high. It is one that has pervaded quite quickly across the border— both literally and figuratively. Speaking as a vaccinated individual, it left me dumbfounded but, more so, particularly curious as to why individuals would dissent to a treatment that can spare them a pain that is potentially fatal and highly contagious. However, after reading Bruenig’s article with a genuine curiosity, I would like to think that I’ve gained a much clearer understanding towards the opposition. Bruenig’s claim for the opposition for one, seems to have an understandable and logical explanation that could still, yet, be somewhat debated. Based on the article, there appears to be a legitimate concern that lies beyond a mere personal choice in obtaining a vaccination. However, although both sides argue to very rational points, there are still murky areas within the topic. This particular article, written by Elizabeth Bruenig, has helped shed light on the cultural and political shift that has, or is currently, taken place today but more specifically, focuses on bigger social questions that have not received the attention they deserve among individuals— including myself.

As the article establishes, both sides are clearly adamant in their views on an individuals right for vaccinations. Bruenig, however, approaches both arguments by juxtaposing the values each countries, both the United States and the country of Sweden, upholds among its people and government. However, serious health cases such as measles vaccinations nonetheless contain ambiguity in the specifics of that particular area. Although the author does a relatively good job in the synthesis of each argument and in laying down the blueprint of the issue, she could have provided the statistics/data of Sweden’s anti-vaccination types. Further elaborating on the statistics of Sweden allows her audience to form an opinion based on facts and not of potential bias. The author showcases data of certain “clustering of anti-vaccination types around certain geographic pinpoints” to illustrate a lack of unanimity and perhaps “cooperation” throughout the United States on the issue. However, she does not give reasons as to why such anti-vaccinations of those areas exist. The foundation of her argument falters because she does not accordingly address the other side. She concludes in writing, “compare research on Americans who resist vaccination and Swedes who willingly sign up for optional vaccines, and it seems as though anti-vaccination advocates are the most American of us all” (Bruenig). Although Bruenig’s data may be true, evidence for counterpart, Sweden, would make her claim much more stronger and reliable. By comparing statistics based on a common objective, her argument would approve to be more credible to her audience.

Bruenig also underscores the influence of political ideals that may be a factor in shaping an individual’s decision for vaccinations. As common knowledge to American citizens, individual rights are fundamental to life. Because individuals have freedom within their own rights, conflicts may easily arise when taken in perspective within the social concept. This serves, yet, as another basis for the author’s argument. American freedom by definition is based on the idea of self-reliance and personal independence. However, more often than not, Bruenig claims, the personal freedom/liberty to not get vaccinated puts at risk the health and well- beings of other individuals. Bruenig also claims that American ideals such as “consumer primacy, individualism, self-determination, and a dim, almost cynical view of common goods like public health individualism encourages anti-vaccination” (Bruenig).

American Individualism and the laisezz-faire approach can certainly make American citizens more self-righteous and maybe, even oblivious, to the needs and concerns of others. This, as a result, certainly poses a major concern upon exercising civilian rights on an issue as deadly as the measles. This nonetheless raises the question is America’s need for independence a hindrance to obtain security and protection for all? Does emphasis on American individualism undermine the value of other human beings? In other words, is it acceptable and appropriate for personal interest to outweigh social responsibility in a case such as this? Which of the other holds more value? Raising this question has certainly made me more aware of the gravity of the situation, but more specifically, interested in the basis of each parties’ argument.

Sweden, Bruenig argues, on the contrary, takes a much more liberal approach in their policy. Studies show that there appears to be a higher percentage of people in Sweden who have chosen to get themselves and their children vaccinated. Bruenig supports this claim with the findings of Research Ronnerstrand whose studies was based on a number of factors such as number of factors such as “age, sex, gender, education, and even level of concern about an H1N1 pandemic, meaning that the decision to be vaccinated or not couldn’t be confounded by, say, a person’s individual panic level or knowledge of infectious disease” (Bruenig). This piece of knowledge is critical to establishing the commitment of Sweden’s people to its government.

Bruenig states, “Trust requires mass coordination of efforts, which in turn requires consistent trust—something neoliberal politics in America vastly undervalues” (Bruenig). Bruenig’s appeal towards Swedish culture suggests that the problem at hand supersedes individual choice and personal, ideals that are so heavily propagated in American culture; the problem lies in the relationship between government ideals and its people. This idea raises skepticism among individuals who question the motives, intentions, and responsibilities of the government. It would make sense that because Americans, unlike Sweden, rely heavily on a capitalistic system that is driven deeply by competition and human consumption, that the needs of others may sometimes be overlooked and dismissed.

Although arguments on both side are clear and reasonable, Bruenig, however, could have addressed, or elaborated, on several topics that would provide more perspective to her readers. It is clear that she speaks in inclination towards Sweden, but doing so can cause her audience to question the information, or lack of it, that she provides. First being an issue that is so commonly talked about as a defense against vaccinations: an individual’s religious rights. She emphasizes American’s need for independence as a sole defense against medical protection, however, she could have addressed, in depth, the concerns and consequences for those who stand strongly by their religion. Those, who are strongly religious, view vaccinations as a violation to their practice. Bruenig could have addressed their defense/ reasoning and even propose possible solutions for their concerns rather than dismissing the topic completely. In addition, Bruenig also emphasizes the need for stronger relations between American government and its people. What are some actions both sides, the institutions and its people, take to establish deeper trust? And if so, would such solution be enough for individuals to take progressive action on the issue?

Bruenig’s article has certainly helped me become more aware of deeper social and ethical issues that lie far beneath the surface of one issue. Questioning the very foundation of the social issue, Bruenig showcases, is to detect the real problem/heart of the issue. As Bruenig expresses in her article, the subliminal message of addressing any social issue is that the solution may be a lot more perplex and devastating than a mere yes or no answer. Although the right to measles vaccinations may seem evident to some people, it may, in fact, be just as unclear to others.