Guaranteed Security of The Vaccine Essay Example

In the past couple of years a global pandemic sparked around the nation known as COVID-19. As time progressed the spread of the infection became hazardous, affecting millions around the world in a negative outlook including their social, emotional, and even physical aspects of their lives. In response to this harmful pandemic the FDA issued an announcement that endorsed all consenting Americans to be encouraged on receiving the COVID-19 vaccination to limit the spread of the virus. As vaccinations went through innovations and testings, the FDA eventually announced the guaranteed security of the vaccine. Popularity over a set question of whether an industry or facility should have the authority to mandate vaccinations in their vicinity arose as well as concerns of whether the vaccine is ethical conversely feeding the question whether these authorities should hold the power to issue the medicine by force. Greg Abbot the governor of Texas responded to the flame by structuring an executive ban on the policy of vaccine mandates stating “no governmental entity can compel any individual to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” (Svitek, par. 13) quoted from the article written by Patrick Svitek named “Gov. Greg Abbott bans government mandates on COVID-19 vaccines regardless of whether they have full FDA approval”. As told from the article Greg Abbott produced this law under the idea to protect those who find it unethical and for those who have medical difficulties with the vaccine. Abbott then speaks upon the restriction to provide vaccinations as a service or requirement focused on private and public entities whether governmental or not. The Controversy on whether individuals should be required to take the vaccine holds a large array of stakeholders such as rural minority students and Houston hospital employees working at the Houston Methodist. These stakeholders are part of the small percentage of Texans who firmly believe in vaccinations totally to a rather small digit “46.2% of Texans” (Svitek, par. 17).

 In an article from the Editorial Board named “No, Houston Methodist's vaccine mandate for staff isn't Nazi torture. It's basic science.” a stakeholder speaks upon a drama that occurred within the Houston Methodist facility before the thorough approval and safety announcement by the FDA. Dr. Marc Boom CEO and director of the Houston Methodist issued a mandate to more than 25,000 employees to get the COVID-19. In response to Dr. Marc’s executive order, 178 employees rejected the vaccine mandate such as Jennifer Bridges, a nurse at the Methodist hospital. As quoted from the Editorial article Bridges said “she told the Chronicle she wanted to have more “thorough research” on the vaccine before taking it” (Editorial Board, par. 5) what was a common claim by individuals before the full approval of the COVID-19 vaccine. The Editorial Board opposes Jennifer Bridges and her logical explanation of rejecting the mandate stating that “it’s disturbing to see a nurse rely so heavily on an oft-repeated claim among anti-vaxxers” (Editorial Board, par. 6). Bridges' group also claims that the vaccine mandate opposes the old World War II violation named the Nuremberg Code. The Nuremberg code is a set of ethical principle created after the great war to prevent human experiments such as the German Nazi scrutiny that violated individual consent. The Editorial speaks upon how a hospital requiring basic safety to it’s staff is not comparable to the monstrous acts of 1941 committed by the Nazis stating an aphorism saying “Nurse Bridges, unlike Jews tortured in concentration camps, can leave any time she wants.”. To wrap up the writer's perspective, they speak upon how it affects them in their social life by addressing the disease in their work environment which in result leads to financial distraught from the lack of employees and the possible physical harm COVID-19 can do to an individual ending their perspective with a coda “reject the lies and the politics and stand up for science.” also relating to the governmental influence Gregg Abbott placed upon the state.

The second stakeholder, the author of “Editorial: How can Abbott protect Texas from COVID when he can’t protect himself?” speaks upon the present situation, an event in which the governor was infected by the disease and their general opinion. Within this article the Editorial Boards major point is about rural individuals but deeply focused on schools and students. These schooling students who were once in a quarantine face “millions of children returning to school who can’t be vaccinated” on a day to day basis with a variety of age groups (Editorial Board, par. 12). To make things complex children who are below the age of 12 do not suit the age requirement of receiving the vaccination hence meaning the students aren’t protected in their elementary to middle school years. These students are faced with the fear and adversity of sickness on a day to day basis as teacher’s/faculty are not under the requirement of a vaccine due to the restriction of the executive law issued by Governor Greg Abbot which puts these young healthy children at risk. The Editorial Board writer feels a personal responsibility for these rural children starting their opinion with the quote “Personal responsibility, apparently, is for the little people.” (Editorial Board, par. 1) further speaking upon how if any individual gets sick the difficulty is great as these “ Texans who must travel an hour to a hospital, only to find there are no beds available” (Editorial Board, par. 12) greatly painting the writer's loss of faith in the governor and the future of Texas. 

Texas has battled mask mandates, long term quarantine restrictions, to high death tolls ranging to a concerning number of“54,000 Texan'' deaths (Editorial Board, par.  24). The high number of infection and death rates puts dispute in Gregg Abbott governmental power due to the formation of groups who are, one either greatly angered by his law or two greatly ecstatic with Abbott's decision to ban the mandations. Those who are angered by his law, such as the two stakeholders, could both agree on the opinion that Greg Abbots choice was not ethically correct and was not responsible for the future of Texas furthermore its people. These stakeholders both could agree that science as well power to the minority is the future of the state of Texas. These two stakeholders support safety, hospitality, carry the responsibility of informing and helping others, and generally feel that the COVID-19 vaccine should be accessible to those who wish to take it and that facilities should have the right to require mandates to their employees. When compared their baseline main ideas come into a standstill. The Editorial Board speaking upon the Houston Methodists would not directly agree that Texas’ rural regions are the most confliction regions putting a contrast between the two authors. By average Texas spikes a constant digit of  “15,516” new cases and “13,666” hospitalizations on a seven day average which is a “10% threshold that Abbot previously has flagged as dangerous.” (Svitek, par. 13) Thankfully the vaccine doses slowly rise on a daily basis leading to less and less infections as quoted from Patrick Svitek projecting Texas to a safer and cleaner environment. Regardless of one's opinion over the ethical/political view on Gregg Abbott’s ban on requiring mandatory vaccinations, Texas will be safe and secure for one’s family and loved ones as the future is full of prosperity and innovations.