Euthanasi Vaccine Refusal On Religious Grounds - 1624 Words

Bioethics: Vaccine Refusal on Religious Grounds in the Context of Navin’s Argument Kayla S. Butsko Vanderbilt University Bioethics: Vaccine Refusal on Religious Grounds in the Context of Navin’s Argument Introduction In the article, â€Å"Resisting Moral Permissiveness about Vaccine Refusal,† Dr. Mark Navin argues against Dr. Bob Sears’ case by insisting that vaccination refusal on the grounds of prioritizing the interest of one’s own children over the interests of public health is not morally justified. He provides two strong moral reasons that he uses to justify his case in favor of vaccinations. Both of these reasons, he suggests, should compel people to get vaccinated and to vaccinate their children. However, Navin fails to recognize the group of people who have strong religious beliefs against vaccinations and the way that they fit into his two arguments. He bases his argument solely on the assumption that people who refuse vaccines for their children are doing so in line with the notion of parental partiality, but it is more complex than that. This paper examines in depth how both of Navin’s arguments cannot apply to everyone, in particular the subgroup of those with religious grounds for vaccine refusal. It also expands upon the problems that arise if his arguments are applied to those with religious grounds for vaccine refusal. Navin’s Issue of Fairness In his first sub-argument, Navin uses the issue of fairness to justify why people ought to feel the need