Question

What is your position of banning unvaccinated to patients from visiting clinics and why?

The medical field's primary focus is on preventative care, and vaccinations are among the essential strategies in preventing many communicable diseases in children; over the past century, morbidity and mortality rates are dramatically reduced due to routine childhood immunizations (Bronfin, 2008). Even though, diseases such as smallpox have been globally eradicated and "many life-threatening conditions such as measles, Haemophilus influenza type b disease, and pertussis have been dramatically curtailed". The vaccination controversy still exists. Patients still refuse to get immunizations or refuse to get their children vaccinated (Bronfin, 2008). Interacting with unvaccinated people puts other patients at risk for diseases, especially the vulnerable populations with medical problems. It can also create different issues like an outbreak to occur. For example, Disneyland experienced an outbreak of measles in 2014, with 40 people contracting the disease. Patients without immunizations should not be allowed into clinics because there is an increased risk of harming other patients, especially those who can't be vaccinated due to certain medical conditions such as cancer.

·   What are the logical or reasonable responses to these concerns?

Assessment and acknowledgment of people's concerns regarding immunizations are crucial; therefore, healthcare providers should assess and educate accordingly. All providers have a responsibility to listen to patients' concerns, fears, and beliefs regarding vaccination. Thus, the clinician can consider before offering any vaccines. By actively listening to the patients, the clinician can give proper education based on current patient knowledge and answer the patient's concerns or questions about vaccination to clear up misunderstandings. The patient should be the one to decide whether or not to accept vaccination.

The patient should acknowledge that vaccines are about 98% effective when used as recommended, vaccines are safe "despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications" vaccines help reduce the risk of many preventable diseases such as measles, whooping cough, etc. Even though some diseases are already eradicated in many countries, travelers can still carry the diseases and spread it if there is no vaccination to protect the population. It can cause epidemics (WHO, n.d.)

·   What are the pros and cons of using a revised immunization schedule?

Pros- Using a revised immunization schedule provides flexibility to the patients/parents and encourages them to get the vaccine. Patients at least get vaccinated; it is better to have at least delayed vaccination than no vaccination at all.

Cons- Delaying the immunizations increase disease risk, increases visits providers more than the recommended schedule, and leaves children unprotected from the disease.

Answer 1

What is your position of banning unvaccinated to patients from visiting clinics and why?

In my opinion, banning unvaccinated persons from healthcare facilities is not an acceptable practice. Because by law an individual have the right to reject a treatment or medicine. Taking or rejecting immunization is absolutely an individual's choice. Restricting a patient on that basis is not correct. In fact, in case of children they are not the decision makers, so they should not suffer due to their parent or guradian's decision.

Some people think that unimmunized persons are causing a risk of spreading disease to others. This is right to some extent. But even immunized persons are not free from the risk of all infections. Along with this all the patients can not take immunization due to some factors such as age, specific disease conditiond, immunocopromised patients and so on. Apart from this all vaccines are not effective or sometimes it can cause serious side effects or complications too.

Marginalizing all the unimmunized persons will cause ethical and legal issues. First of all healthcare is the primary right for all people regardless of their backgrounds. so, that is the primary duty of governments and all healthcare providers.There is no meaning in selectively providing treatment for a particular category only. Secondly, restricting unimmunized people in primary healthcare facilities will cause serious side effect, in such case their health problems will be kept unrecognised and untreated, this will be communicated to others and will be a burden of entire society.

I think, education can cause better result than restriction. Unvaccinated persons have to counselled and educated properly regarding benefits and demerits of vaccinations. In case of some cultural or social issues preventing someone to take vaccination, the healthcare provider has the responsibility to discuss with them and to convince them. if it is not possible, suggest next best alternative for the preventive healthcare.

Travelers can carry the eradicated diseases and spread it if there is no vaccination to protect the population. What are the logical or reasonable responses to these concerns?

Now the world is a just like a global village due to the availability of traveling facilities. People can travel to all nuke and corners of the world. This has many positives sides. At the same time this can leads to spread of diseases very quickly from country to country or region to another region. The best example is the current corona pademic, that spreads through out the world.

Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases. Elimination of some disease from some areas or countries we have achieved already by proper implementation of immunization programme. Global eradication is our next task. Travellers can cause negative impact on achievement of this by speading disease from uneradinated area to already eradicated area. Vaccination can positively contributes in this aspect. Vaccination can provide immunity against diseases and the vaccinated persons are having very less probability to affect wilth that specific illness

But there are many anti- vaccination movements are running. That is not ethical to vaccinate all people forcefully. Governments can demand vaccination status of the travellers and can restrict the unimmunized person to enter from one country to another. But vaccinating all people without considering their opinion is not practical as well as not right. so along with the vacciantion schedule to prevent communicability of disease from one area to another proper screening has to be done for the travellers. Correct screening and quarantine can give positive results in disease prevention that cause by travellers.

What are the pros and cons of using a revised immunization schedule?

World Health Organization's revised immunization schedule provides flexibility to the patients. There are some pros and cons for this.

Flexibility in the vaccination schedule is good for many people. This encourage them to take vaccination without skipping eventhough there is slight changes in vaccination time. So the children will get some sort of immunity fully or partially. Along with this according to revised schedule,not all vaccines are mandatory. This is really beneficial. Parents or healthcare provides can choose the vaccination as per the region or society specifications because all diseases are not prevallent everywhere.

At the same time the flexibility can cause ill effects also. Most of the vaccines have to take in specific age limit or within a specific duration after the previous dose to get protected from disease. But flexibilty in schedule can cause exceeding of this time limit and may sometimes will not get the actual benefit of the vaccination.