Consent for Vaccination

DQ2.1 Consent for Vaccination
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Institutional Affiliations
Course Name and Number
Due Date
DQ2.1 Consent for Vaccination
Response to ___________
Parisi is correct to suggest that parental consent is desirable when treating neonatal ophthalmia, but it is not a legal requirement. If left untreated, the illness could result in a severe disability. Therefore, it is in the child’s best interest to have this condition treated as soon as possible. The parents would be negligent if they opposed treatment for the child. Before 1880, neonatal ophthalmia was newborns’ leading cause of permanent blindness. Now that preventing such an adverse outcome is possible, doctors must do so with or without parental consent. However, that duty’s exercise has to align with state law. For example, some states allow parents to cite religious beliefs as a valid reason for objecting to certain treatments for their newborns. Though morally inclined towards helping the infant, health practitioners must follow the law. Fortunately, some states like Nebraska allow doctors to act in such cases even if the parents of the newborn cite religious belief as to the reason for their objection. This status quo results from the ruling in Douglas County v. Anaya (2005), where rational basis trounced strict scrutiny standard review in these cases. Should other states prioritize the newborn’s health as opposed to the parent’s religious beliefs when treating potential harmful diseases such as neonatal ophthalmia?
Response to ___________
Juanita raises a fundamental question of parents’ right to know what is happening to their child. Juanita first addresses this concept by delving into the legality of newborn screening. She asserts that it is mandatory in all 50 states in the U.S. Juanita rightly explains that most doctors do not discuss the screening with the mother. Instead, they only pursue it as a legal process. As a result, the parents remain uninformed about the screening. They also do not know what might happen if the screening detects an anomaly. Juanita correctly explains that reducing friction between medical professionals and parents in such cases is possible if parents receive more information on the subject than they currently do. For example, Juanita explains that availing statistics to parents might be useful (CDC, 2019). The same argument should apply to New York state law on Covid-19 vaccination for minors. Even though 14-year-olds can receive a vaccine without parental consent, parents should be aware that they have done so. They should also receive information on why the vaccine is vital for them and the minor. Does a parent have a right to know what is happening to their child, even if it is a mandatory medical process?
Res...