Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?

Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents

immunise

their

children

.

However

, I feel the question is not whether they should

immunise

but whether, as members of

society

, they have the right not to. Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal childhood

diseases

.

As a result

of the widespread practice of immunising young

children

in our

society

, many lives have been saved and

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

diseases

have been reduced to almost zero. In previous centuries

children

died from ordinary illnesses

such

as influenza and tuberculosis and because few people had immunity, the

diseases

spread easily.

Diseases

such

as dysentery were the result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse

this

good practice now because dysentery has been wiped out. Serious

diseases

such

as polio and smallpox have

also

been eradicated through national immunisation programmes. In consequence,

children

not immunised are far less at risk in

this

disease-free

society

than they would

otherwise

be. Parents choosing not to

immunise

are relying on the fact that the

diseases

have already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing not to

immunise

increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the

diseases

returning. Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the individual. A decision not to

immunise

will have widespread repercussions for the whole of

society

and

for

this

reason, I do not believe that individuals have the right to stand aside. In my

opinion

Add a comma

,opinion

show examples

immunisation should be obligatory.